-^fffff^ 



^ * ^'^^^^^jvX^y 






-.fsrm^^ 



,«v..S«5!SS"#..««'^'i 






N<m'^^p^.f^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.} 



^)^/:jO'^ai^ 






-■Aaa^o 



J .=^;^ 



3? I 






-?^^^-i,-«, 



AA^a'' 



{united states of AMERICA. {I 



^?«?????!??^||^ 



^A^Aa^ 












^M^^A^^^-^OC 



^^ww>W^DA/^A'^'^A'",;^f 






.2;^ft^.a 



^^^s^^liwSf^^ 



\^f<ff^rH 






s A /^UU'V^■A'>^V'/^'■ .'^ ' a A^f^ 






^^h^M.AM^M/^dM&<kmM^mm^^^i^^ 



srmmti 



,AAA «AA/?? 



;A/>Ar*;r\l 



:«*Amcmto0fiflSaQS5.55MO?S5OO( 



'SffS^Rei 



•i^s^^ii 



m:Si''''T^ 



A A rs /-», r> A A' '>,':^::^^i#^ 












s^awii 






^^yiyii^ 



'^mrr\r\fmfsm 



r^'^cwO'C;k'^!ft/^:( 



x~ ,>v^ ,'2-: ;^. '^, V '0\ /2^, AVrs W\ V^ 'Wi W f_A / 



1 r'^'*^' 






mi&mMMMMM mMMmMMMMMm 




p ■• ^■:^M 0^^>i^&^^IM^&iM^&^^^^^M^^^i ^ 






THE 



AL CHURCH 

WITH AN EXAMINATION INTO THE CLAIMS Oi" 












METHODIST EPISCOPACY. iR 



i 

s 

V 



IN A SERIES OF LETTEIIS ADDHESSZI^ 






K-EF. ALLEN STEELE, 



fei^K 









^ 
^ 

^ 



WiTII KI3 RE?LIi:3. 



BY JAMES A. BOLl^S, A. M. 

Rector of St James' Chvrch, Balaviaj N. Y, 



C 



PRIJNTED 
BY FREDERICK FOLLETT, 

EATAVIA, N. T. 

1843. 












\ 



THE 



BPISfiOPU CHllRtH DEFENDED: 



WITH 



An Examiiiatioii into the Claims 



OF 



METHODIST EPISCOPACY; 

IN A SERIES OF LETTERS ADDRESSED TO 

THE REV, ALLEN STEELE, 

WITH HIS REPLIES. 
, /!___ 

Ey Jaiaes A. BoIIes, 

RECTOR OF ST. JAMES' CHURCH, BAT AVI A, N. 




PRINTED 

BY FREDERICK FOLLETT, 

Batavia, Genesee Co. N, Y. 



Vi 



& 






Jo 



ADVERTISEMEP^T TO THE EEADEE- 

The Eev. Mr. Steele to whom these letters are addressed and 
whose replies are inserted, is considered the most able, learned and 
eloquent preacher of the Methodist denomination, in this section 
of the country* In consequence of charges publicly made by him 
against individuals, mentioning them hj name, and a subsequent 
attack upon the Episcopal Church in a series of Lectures, this 
Gorrespondence was commenced.. But it is now published, not on 
account of any interest which it possesses as a personal controver- 
sy, but to meet the arguments by which the Church is at present 
assailed, in vaxious places, especially by the Methodists. The 
reader will find in these letters, a number of rare and important 
facts and documents relating to Methodism;, and also a review of 
the Book of Dr. Bangs, entitled ^'^ Original Church of Christ J* 

Some of these letters were not sent to Mr. Steele for the reasons 
stated in the concluding letter. Those which were sent to him, 
as well as those which were received from him, are here publish- 
ed as sent and received. 



i 



Bata VIA, September?, 1842. 
To the Rev. Allen Steele : — 

Dear Sir — ^I am informed that some time since, you read a com- 
munication to your congregation, relating, in part, to myself, — 
mentioning me hy name — and containing such charges, expressed 
or implied, as were calculated to injure my character and influence 
in the estimation of this community. 

Now, as I am not conscious of having given any just cause of 
offence either to yourself oryour Methodist brethren, I cannot with- 
hold from you the respectful expression of my opinion, that this 
attack upon my character, is altogether unkind and unjustifiable ; 
and when I consider the many substantial proofs which my peo- 
ple have given to you of their regard, I am at a loss to understand 
the reasons of this sudden attempt to hold us up to the scorn and 
ridicule of the world. 

True it is, that between you as a Methodist and myself as an 
Episcopalian, there is a wide difference of opinion on the import- 
ant subjects of Church government and order, and most happy 
should I be at any time, in a calm and dispassionate manner, to 
discuss or examine those differences with you. But such is the 
nature of your present attack, that no other course seems to be 
left to me, than plainly and honestly to enter my solemn protest 
against this extraordinary arraignment, — an arraignment of which 
no notice had been previously given to me, which forestalls public 
opinion and which denies to me the common privilege of self-de- 
fence. 

In the celebrated controversy which took place some years ago, 
between Bishop Hobart and Dr. Mason, (to which I take the liber- 
ty of referring you,) the former was accused of ^^ uncharitahlenes^ 



6 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

and bigotry,'*^ of maintaining the alternative of ^^ Episcopacy or 
perdition;''^ and it was upon this pretended ground of defence 
against the exclusiveness of such a doctrine, that the controversy- 
was commenced. But this accusation the now sainted Hobart 
utterly disclaimed ; he declared it to be " ungenerous and imjust^'** 
and quoted the following remarks of Bishop Horsly, as contain- 
ing the sentiments of his own heart ; — and now, as adopting and 
cherishing the same, I beg leave to quote them and with them to 
close my letter. 

*' Though truth in these controversies can be only on one side, I 
will indulge and I will avow the charitable opinion, that sincerity 
may be oii both. And I will enjoy the reflection that by an equal 
sincerity, through the power of that blood which was shed equal- 
ly for all, both parties may at length find equal mercy. In the 
transport of this holy hope, I will anticipate that glorious consum- 
mation, when faith shall be absorbed in knowledge, and the fire 
of cotroversy forever quenched ; when the same generous zeal 
for God and truth, which too often in this world of folly and con- 
fusion, sets those at widest variance, whom the similitude of vir- 
tuous feelings should most unite, shall be the cement of an indis- 
soluble: friendship; when the innumerable multitudes of all na- 
tions, kindreds and people, (why should I not add, of all sects and 
parties?) assembled round the Throne, shall, like the first Christ- 
ians, be of one soul and one mind, giving praise with one consent 
to Him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb that was slain 
to redeem them by his blood." 

Very Respectfully, &;c. 

James A. Bolles. 



Batayia, Sept. 17, 1842. 
Eev. Mr. Bolles :— 

Dear Sir — Yours of the 1st inst. has been received, and I hasten 
to reply. If I understand your communication (for there is a 
ragueness about some parts of it which leaves me in doubt as to 



BEFEKDEB, 7 

the extent of meaning you designed to attach to it.) As I under- 
stand your letter, it contains a Qomplaint of injustice — a challenge 
to discussion-— a threat of exposure, and a profession of christian 
'<:karity, I will notice each of these hrieliy. 

And first, you complain of an unjust attack upon yourself and 
Church. This appears to be based upon the reading of a com- 
munication to my congregation in which you were called by name 
and which as you assert contained charges injurious to your char- 
acter and influence, and that too, when upon your part there had 
been no just cause of offence, but many substantial proofs of your 
regard. In reference to this complaint, I acknowledge the read* 
ing of a communication addressed to me from the *^ Leaders Meet- 
ing of St. John^s Church," in which is found the following lan- 
guage: — ''At a Leaders' Meeting held at St. John's Church on 
the 25th instant, (eluly) it was unanimously resolved, that you 
(i.e. myself,) be requested to deliver a few sermons on the subject 
of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in order 
to disabuse the public mind against the efforts lately., and now 
being made to prejudice the community against Methodism, by 
the introduction of anonymous pamphlets attacking the character 
and regulations of the Methodist Episcopal Church as lately done 
b^v" the St. Rev, William H. De Lancy, Bishop of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church for the Diocese of Western New York, and the 
distribution of the same by the Rev. James A. Bolles, Rector of St. 
James' Church, Batavia, Genesee Co., N. Y." I acknowledge 
that the reading of this communication, if the allegation hefalsCj 
would have furnished you with ground of complaint. And had f 
entertained any doubt of its truth, it would have been proper for 
me to have either declined reading it, or called on you for infor- 
mation. But what are the facts in the case ? Will you deny the 
charge ? It is not necessary for me here to remind you of the cir- 
culation of Tract No. 4 — a Tract witaout \ke name of the author, 
printer, or publisher — yet used by your Clergy for sectarian pur- 
poses, and in this place (as is evident) for keeping persons from 
uniting with the Methodist Episcopal Chuch — a Tract, the mat- 
ter of which is made \i^ of garbled extracts and false statements. 



8 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

J need not tell you that when the thing became public, and we 
contemplated an exposure of the attack, you sought for peace, and 
peace w^s granted-^I need not tell you of the introduction, per 
your order, in direct violation of your proposed desire of peace and 
friendship, of Tract No. 5, in which you attack not only us, but 
all Churches not Episcopal, in ^owr sense of the term, and set up 
YOUR '* Episcopacy or perdition." I need not tell you of the read' 
ing of Dr, Chapman's Sermons in your Church, than which, none 
perhaps, are more exclusive or denunciatory. With these and a 
large class of similar facts, you are familiar. And can you say, 
sir, with these facts before you, that there was no cause of offence ? 
And what if (as you claim,) your people had given proofs of friend^ 
ship, are tokens of private friendship to be taken into the account 
when the Church in which I have been nurtured is assailed? — - 
My Mother branded with hypocrite, imposter, and all her children 
turned over to the iincovenanted mercies of God, and no hope of 
heaven held out to them only on the ground of uniting with her 
defamers. Private friendship / what has this to do with my qffi' 
cial duties as a Minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, and my obliga- 
tions to God and the Church of which I am a member ? Am I to 
remain in silence and see my Mother slandered^ rohhed, murder^ 
ed^ because, forsooth, the murderer claims to be my friend? If 
you take me for a Judas you are mistaken in the man. Rather let 
thy money and thy friendship perish with thee, than that I should 
betray the charge committed to my care. I love my Mother too 
well not to defend her, especially when she has tnith on Pier side. 
And as the Minister set over the spiritual interests of the people 
worshipping in St, John's Church, am I to stand still and see a 
neighboring minister write hypocrite & imposter upon our Church, 
our Pulpit, our Altar, our Baptismal Font — upon all our ministra-* 
tions, and because he claims to be my friend, and says he wishes 
us peace and prosperity, and would deprecate exceedingly any 
hostility of feeling betv/een us, say nothing ? Why, to urge the 
claim of friendship under such circumstances only adds to the in- 
jury, insult and abuse, and warrants a conclusion, if it be true, 
which to you, would be any thing but honorable. By what prin-. 



DEFENDED. 9 

ciple of High Churchism could you have been governed in lending 
your influence and money (as you claim you did) for the erection 
of St. John's Church — nay, he the originator of it, as you have 
more than once asserted, if, in our ministrations there, as you 
would now fain have the public believe, we are guilty of stated 
profanation, whereas, if it had not been erected, many of us might 
perhaps, have found a place at St. James' in the regular succes' 
sion, and had a part in the covenant mercies of God ? Is this ev- 
idence of your friendship and regard for our salvation, or proof of 
a recklessness of our eternal interests ? The plea for gratitude, 
if well founded, would not be to your honor as a High Church- 
man, but disgrace. 

So far from attacking you, and yours, we claim to act on the 
defensive^ and so an enlightened public v/ill understand it. What! 
am I attacking you in proving the validity of my credentials, after 
being published by you as an imposter ? An effort has been made 
again and again to prejudice this community against Methodism 
by proclaiming that we are not a Church — had no Ministry nor 
Sacraments; efforts w^hich I could but look upon as Jesuitical, 
wanton, unauthorized and inconsistent with the charities of the 
Gospel, and without a parallel in my experience ! To remain in 
silence under such circumstances, I considered would be sin. — 
Our Church thought so, also, and requested me to disabuse the 
community, and show to the people that we were a church accor- 
ding to Scripture and primitive usage. And which, in the name 
of the Great Head of the Church I commenced doing, and in his 
name shall endeavor to accomplish to the best of my ability. 

And here let me ir^ quire, v/hat have I done to provoke this at- 
tack upon us, and our institutions' — to provoke '' this extraordina- 
ry arraignment— this effort to hold us up to the scorn and ridicule 
of the world"? Have my ministrations here warranted such an 
attack — or any attack? Have I not walked before the people 
here as a Minister of Peace ? Have I preached a sermon here 
previous to this defence on a controverted point of Theology as 
held by Orthodox Churches ? Have I attempted to proselyte from 
your Church? I challenge an instance. Why, then, have you 



10 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

thus attempted to hold us up to the scorn and ridicule of this com- 
munity? Under these circumstances, if any respect is due our- 
selves, as we venerate the pious dead and would honor the truth, 
it becomes our duty to show the attack to be unjust, and that our 
cause was of God, and no cry of 'persecution^ of ingratitude^ or 
threat of a withdrawal oi friendship) or money ^ or all, at this late 
hour, will deter us from this work of justice- — nothing but a dis- 
tinct denial upon your part of t\\Q doctrine of the Tracts, (Nos. 
4 & 5,) as being the doctrine of your Church. 

In regard to 3^Gur challenge^ if you designed it as one, though 
I am not a man of war, and Phrenologists do not give me a very 
prominent ''War bump," though sufficiently large for all the or- 
dinary purposes of life, yet knowing "Twice is he armed who 
knows his cause is just," I shall not decline an examination of 
our differences, provided the necessary preliminaries can be set- 
tled, and I am happy to have your avowal that this difference is 
^^wide,^^ There is indeed a vast difference between Romanism 
and Protestantism. You are av\^are, however, that we occupy a 
very different position than that of Dr. Mason, to which you refer. 
An honorable peace I prefer to war, but war, to dishonorable 
peace. As to the threat of exposure, you are at liberty to make 
^ny protest to the public against the course I have taken in this 
defence that you see proper. I shall abide the issue, nor shall I 
complain of being '' denied the common privilege of self-defence," 
As I acknowledge no such power in this land of Christian Lib- 
erty, and no such deprivation of right. 

Your professions of Charity at the close of your letter, I take 
as evidence that your heart is better than your head — for with 
what kind of consistency with your principles as a High Church- 
man can you expect that I, a false teacher, an impostor, who 
claim to be something, a Minister of the Lord Jesus, when I am 
nothing, that I shall find equal mercy with yourself? What! a 
Methodist Minister, Vv^ho has not received the Sacraments of the 
Church — who has believed, and taught, and practised the most 
damning heresies, shall, though unbaptized, unordained, mingle 
with the High Churchman around the throne of God, and join 



DEFENDED. II 

forever in the praises of the Most High? Are you sincere, sir? 
Then where is the jus dimmim of your Episcopacy? And why 
this mighty eifort to unchurch your neighbors ? 

In conclusion I will only say, that there are many things in 
your Church that I admire. I have strong attachments to her — 
I wish her prosperity in her aggressions upon the territory of sin. 
But when she attempts to unchurch others, and claims to be the 
only primitive, Apostolical Church — the Ciiurch of the United 
States — calls the Ministr}^ of other Churches and their ordinan* 
,ces invalid, she must not think it strange if such arrogance and 
lordly assumption is met with argument and Christian rebuke. 
In this defence I stand where the early Gentile convert stood in 
opposing the Jewish bigotry of the Temple — where your ances- 
tors stood in resisting the usurpations of Papal Eome — nor do I 
design to abandon these pure doctrines of a pure Protestantism* 
but wish it to be distinctly understood, that I have entered an 
eternal protest against the lordly claims of these self-styled suc- 
cessors of the Apostles — against the semi-Popery of Oxford 
Tractarians, and their coadjutors in Western New York. 

With an ardent desire that we may be mutual sharers in the 
covenant mercies of God, both here and in that world where big- 
oted exclusiveness will never be permitted to disturb the peace 
of its inhabitants, I subscribe myself 

Your very dear (tho' unacknowledged,) 
Brother and fellovv'- Laborer in the 

Kingdom^ of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, 

Allen Steele, 



Batavia, Sept. 19, 1842. 
To the Eev. A. Steele: — 

Dear Sir — Although I would not presume to donbt your asser- 
tion, that ** Phrenologists do not give you a very prominent war- 
bump," yet it does seem to me (and you must excuse this pleas- 
antry) that the bump of *' /d!eaZ%," is pretty largely developed, 



12 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

for really, your imagination has conjured up a great many spec- 
tres, with which certainly, I had no design of haunting you. Are 
you in earnest in supposing that my letter contained a *' challenge" 
in the ordinary acceptation of that term? — or any '' threat of ex- 
posure or of the withdrawal of friendship or money?" May not 
an individual propose a calm and dispassionate discussion or ex- 
amination without sending a " challenge ?" Is there no difference 
between a solemn 'protest and a *' threat of exposure?" Can a 
*' withdrawal of friendship or money" be intended, when no such 
expressions are used, nor an}^ allusion made to them at all ? Is 
a frank declaration of christian kindness and love, to be regarded 
as nothing more than a mere '''"profession oi charity ? Be assured 
sir, you have mistaken entirely the spirit of my letter; for, fearing 
that you might be extremely sensitive, I endeavored to guard it 
against every thing which could possibly give you offence. 

But what are the charges which you bring against me ? That I 
havepublish3d you a *' false teacher and impostor"? — that to inju- 
ry I have added '^ insult and abuse"? — that I have " taken you for 
a Judas" and "written hypocrite and impostor upon your church, 
your pulpit, your altar„ your baptismal font and all your ministra- 
tions" ? — that I have " unchurched you and turned you over to 
the uncovenanted mercies of God, and held out no hope of Heaven 
excepting on the ground of uniting with your defamers" ?— that 
I have "slandered, robbed and murdered your mother," and still 
claim to be your friend"? — that I have acted towards you in a 
*' Jesuitical, wanton and unauthorized" niianner, " inconsistent with 
the charities of the Gospel, and without a parallel in your expe- 
rience" ? — that I am actuated by "Jewish bigotry" and "bigoted 
exclusiveness" ? — that I am sustaining "the usurpations of Pa- 
pal Rome" and am a "coadjutor of the semi-popery of Oxford 
tractarians, in Western New- York" ? Why, such a catalogue of 
high crimes and misdemeanors ought to consign me to the gal- 
lows. But I will not do you the injustice to suppose, that all 
these charges are intended for me, though either directly or indi- 
rectly you apply them to me, — and though if I should follow your 
example in imagining others, a still longer catalogue might be 



DEFENDED. l3 

easily conjured up from the many strange expressions in your let- 
ter. These hard names and epithets are more easily employed 
than substantiated — other and better men than myself have been 
reproached by them, and therefore my only emotions are those of 
sorrow, that you should so far forget yourself, as to think the oc- 
casion sufficient to call them forth. 

But you acknowledge the reading of a document to your con- 
gregation, stating thatBishop De Lancey had introduced *^ anony- 
mous pamphlets, attacking the character and regulations of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and that the same pamphlets had 
been distributed by me/' and you assert that "they are used by 
our Clergy for sectarian purposes, &c. &;c. Now you will readily 
grant, that the fact of " the Leaders of St. John's Church" hav* 
ing placed this document in your hands does not make its state- 
ments true, nor does the fact that you read it to the public and thus 
gave to it the sanction of your name, make those statem.ents true; 
for no man or set of men, however honest or sincere, can manu" 
frcture evidence, where none exists. And so far as Bishop De 
Lancey is concerned, I fearlessiyassert that there is not the slight'^ 
est ground for the allegation brought against him. Nay, some 
of your own people, your " Leaders" I presume, procured a quan- 
tity of the Tract No. 4 on Methodism, and together with Dr. Peck's 
reply, you placed them in the Bookstore either for sal^ or gratu- 
itous distribution, and therefore the charge brought against the 
Bishop, might with niuch more justice be brought against your- 
selves. Let this fact be remembered, that the Methodists placed 
the Tract No. 4, on Methodism, in the Bookstore, and not Bishop 
De Lancey or myself, as many have been ledto suppose. But v/hat 
are the only pretended grounds for the allegation ? They are 
simply these, — that Dr. Peck has stated in his pamphlet, that he 
" called at a respectable Bookstore in the city of New- York, to ob- 
tain a copy of Tract No, 4 and was told, that the Bishop of the 
Western Diocese of this State, had taken all they had on hand fox 
the use of his Diocese." Dr. Peck does not mention the name 
of the Bookstore nor in what part of the city it was, nor who was 
the individual who gave him the information, nor indeed whether 



14 THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCH 

the person had any connection whatever Arith the store. Now I 
ask you, — is this a suf!i:ient groarid on which to build a public ac- 
cusation against the character of a christian Brother? Is there 
any substantial foundation here for the charges which you have 
made ? Is this doing to others as we would that they should do 
unto us ? Would your people or would my people bear me out in 
making the most serious public accusations against you,, founded 
merely upon the second hand information of some unknown in- 
formant in the city of New-York? But more than this^.some of 
your ^'Leaders,^"or one certainly,, was informed before that com- 
munication Avas made known to your congregation, that Bishop 
De Lancey had remarked at the time of his last visit to this place,, 
that he had never seen or read the Tract at all- Was not this in- 
formation as good as the other, and in all fairness at least,, should 
it not have been communicated in connection with the other? If, 
instead of stating as a fact a mere inference of your " Leaders,'^ 
you had given to- the congregation the precise language of Dr^ 
Peck, do you suppose that the sensible members of your flock 
would have justified the proceeding? Ah! my friend, we must 
learn a better lesson than this. We must learn not to exaggerate 
end torture the truth at any time,, and especially should we strive, 
to be tender of each other's character and reputation. 

What a plight are we in ? We have circulated a false report 
against an absent brother,, and as falsehood travels faster than- 
truth, we must forever renounce all hope of being- able entirely 
to undo the wrong; andean, we expect that Methodism, that Epis- 
eopalianism or that Christianity under any form, will be permit- 
ted to prosper by such efforts as these? Are not the common ob- 
ligations of morality as binding upon "these who profess and calL 
themselves christians," as they are upon the men of the world?: 
Do we not know that a blessing is pronounced upon that man who- 
" hath used no deceit in his tongue,, nor done evil to bis neighbor, 
and hath not slandered his neighbor "? True,. this injurymiiy not 
have been intended, and those who have been engaged in it may be? 
*' good men and christians;" but this does'not excuse the evils of 
haste and inconsideration, — for we are all old enough to know better. 



DEFENDED. 15 

But how is the allegation sustained in reference to myself' 
All the information that you have upon the subject, you have re* 
ceived from others. You have never deigned to introduce the- 
matter to me, and yet the opportunity has been afforded you again- 
and again, for I have called upon you much oftener than you hav» 
upon me.. You must excuse me therefore, if I presume that you 
have been misled as to facts^ and that if you had followed the^ 
scripture rule " if thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell 
him his fault between thee and him alone," then such an explan- 
ation might have been given as would have convinced you of your 
error. There never was a congregation formed under auspicea^ 
more favorable than your own, nor one in relation to which every 
member of the community was more kindly disposed^ and there- 
fore any complaint that attempts have been made to prejudice the- 
people against you, is altogether out of place., The subscription* 
for your house was a general one, drawn up by myself, and con- 
taining an appeal to the liberality of all our citizens, and with the- 
exception of the indiscreet and over anxious zeal ofa few, nothing 
has occurred to mar the harmony that existed and ought always 
to exist between the inhabitants of the same vicinity. Some„. 
however,, instead of waiting for that kind of growth which is not 
.the less permanent because it is slow, seemed determined to brings 
every individual at once into the^fold; and relying upon' the ac- 
knowledged talents and popularity of their minister, v/hose servi- 
ces theycouM npt long expect to enjoy ^,they determined to make 
the most of the time; and forgetting- in; their haste the common^ 
courtesies ofbrethren,, they have been, we fear, regardless wheth- 
er their converts came from the v/orld or from the other estab-» 
lished congregations around them.. What was the sentiment- 
once uttered both in your hearing and in mine, \'v4ien you 
were urged, to unite in the efforts making by Elder Marshall?' 
** we shall get all the converts." Not, is it right or wrong, but 
*-Sve shall get all the converts.'* These efforts, however^gave 
me no concern, nor did I consider them deserving ci^ther of notice, 
or complaint; for though young, I have lived long enau^h in the 
world to know, that sensible people cannot easily be moved, and 



16 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

that the arts of proselytism are generally well understood and in 
the end defeat themselves. But when I found that Books were 
in circulation, such as never hefore had appeared in this village,, 
to my knowledge, containing the grossest mistatements in rela- 
tion to the true doctrines of the Episcopal Church, and published 
under the high sanction of the ''Methodist Book Concern;" and 
when one of those Books was brought to me as coming directly 
from yourself, then indeed I put two copies of Tract No. 4 in cir- 
culation, not among your people, however, but my own. Then 
followed a most unusual ferment in certain quarters, and my name 
became the theme of conversation in stores and offices, and per- 
sons wishing to know what awful deed I had done, came for the 
Tract. As my original number v/as but a half dozen, they were 
soon distributed and I was obliged to send for a half dozen more^ 
ell I have ever had. Among the persons who came for the Tract 
was a Gentleman of your church, but with much hesitaion, and 
not until after expressing my desire not to do it, did I give one 
to him. Under no other circumstances, and in no other wa}'-, have 
I given a single copy to any individual not connected with St^ 
James' Church* 

Suppose, now, that we reconsider these facts. As early as 
1836 a number of anonymous articles appeared in the Advocate 
& Journal (Methodist paper,) containing the grossest abuse of the 
Episcopal Church— so grossly abusive that they were briefly and 
most effectually replied to in the Churchman by a Methodist 
Minister* Soon afterwards, however, these articles were collec- 
ted together and published in a Book by the "Methodist Book 
concern," under the deceptive title of the " Original Church of 
Christ," by Dr. Bangs, and sustained and recommended by reso^ 
lutions of Conferences, fee. &c.— and the said book has already 
passed through two editions. Then, following this, were tw6 
Tracts compiled by the same Dr^ Bangs and published by the 
same " Concern," and intended more immediately for dissemina- 
tion among the people. In one of these Tracts, among other 
things, our Bishops are charged with *' brutal stupidity, ignorance 
and wickedness." And again; ** Such is the magic influence of 



DEFENDED. 17^ 

the Oil of Consecration, that these men are instantly metamor- 
phosed into saints, into legitimate successors of the Apostles" !— - 
In the other Tract, the rites, ceremonies and usages of the Church 
are taken up and caricatured— Confirmation is represented as a 
** relic of Eomish superstition," — ^prescribed forms of pra^^er are 
ridiculed as though our people, in times of sickness &c., " can in 
no otherwise pray than as they are directed by a prescribed form," 
— our Conventions are spoken of as composed of men who " neither 
fear God nor work righteousness," and our Church is charged with 
** the allowing of Balls and Theatres." Here let it be remem- 
bered that we date the beginning of these beautiful specimens 
of Christian kindness and truth as far back as 1836. But has 
the Episcopal Church taken any notice of these publications ? 
No sir. Though the provocation was a great one, yet the Church 
has not departed from her invariable rule^ never under her sanc- 
tion to utter a word of *^ party slang," or to mingle at all in party 
controversy. She considers herself a Church, and not a Sect. 
She feels her security as built ^' upon the foundation of the Apos- 
tles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner 
stone," and she knows, therefore, that "the gates of Hell cannot 
prevail against her." All that has ever appeared in her defence 
has originated with private individuals, in their private capacit)% 
and on their own private responsibility. And now some country 
clergyman, finding, as I did, that tlijs Books referred to w^ere dis- 
seminated among his people, that "Leaders" were forgetting to 
lead in paths of righteousness and peace— some such clergyman 
has taken the pains during the last year, to collect the senthnenta 
of Mr. Wesley in relation to the Church— to show^ what were his 
intentions in establishing the Methodist Society, and how far 
these intentions have been departed from — to show^ who it was, 
that he regarded as his spiritual Mother, and whether others 
might not be mistaken as to their parentage ; presuming that the 
first-born son wo aid be more likely to know the Mother than the 
grand-children to the third and fourth generation,* and being 

*Mr. Wesl-cy .said that he was the *' Father of all the MethodistB," and 
ke frequently spoke ofl.be Church as ''his Mother,'' 

2 



18. THE EPISCOPAL CHXTSCH 

miwiliing and unable, perhaps,, ta endure the odium which even^ 
this slight attempt would be likely to cast upon him, he has pub- 
lished those sentiments without niime. But at the same time he 
has given the ^'edition of Mi%. Wesley "^s Works printed at the 
Conference Office 1840," as that from, which his extracts are ta- 
ken^ so that every individual may examine the authorities for 
himself. 

But what are your objections to the Tract? That it is "made 
up of garbled extracts and false statements'^ ? Let me tell you, 
Sir, that you are mistaken in this; and had you compared the 
extracts v/ith Mr. W^esley's works,.! can scarcely believe thatyou^ 
would have hazarded the assertion ; for I have myself examined^ 
both, and I find not only an exact agreement between the copy 
and the original, but that much, more might have been selected, 
bearing upon the same points^ and equally to the purpose* True,, 
the Tract does not profess to give all the writings of Mr., Wesley,, 
and therefore it contains extracts only ^ but those extracts are not 
" garbled," nor do they misstate the gen^uine sentiments of the 
author at the tim.8 w^hen he wrote them. Let the individual who^ 
desires satisfaction examine for himself. 

Again you object that it is *'Avithout the name of the Author^.. 
Printer or Publisher." This is an objection which unthinking 
people will be apt to. regard as sound; but let us consider it as 
men. If there is traih in ik then it is mighty and can prevail, 
without names, and if there is error, then it must fall, and should" 
have no names even for a moment to sustain it; and for my own 
part, I wish that all works,., merely controversial, being more or' 
less mixed vv^lth error, vrere stripped of every extraneous support 
and were allowed to stand upon their ovv^n intrinsic merits. What 
has hitherto sustained the controversial v^^orks of Dr.. Bangs ? 
Nothing but the name ; and I venture to say that if they were now 
published anonymous, as they were originally, no v/ell informed' 
Jlelhodist vv^ould regard them as authority, and the injury which 
the} have done and a^re destined still to do, would be infinitely 
less. In ail such vvorks let facts be given, and let a reference be 
made to the source, v/hence a knowledge of those facts is deri- 



DEFENDED. 1^ 

ved, and then let each individual be allowed to judge for himself, 
of the conclusions which those facts warrant. I have great con- 
fidence myself in the intuitive judgment of the people, especial- 
ly when no artful special pleadings are resorted to, to bias their 
minds — and I have still greater confidence in their *' sober sec- 
ond thought," notwithstanding the influence of all such plead- 
ings. 

Now reflect upon the facts here brought to light, and make it 
a serious question with the conscience, whether they are such as 
to aflbrd a just foundation for the charges w^hich you have pub- 
licly brought against me. Remember, too, that ail the conse* 
quences which have resulted from that unfortunate stfep, are ini 
some degree attributable to it. All the heart-burnings^ and bicli- 
erings, and evil speakings, even among friends and neighbors — « 
(though thanks to a merciful God, my own people have in gen- 
eral heeu enabled to possess their souls in patience) — all the false 
reports which Rumor, w^ith her hundred tongues, has carried in- 
to the surrounding countrj", that I have fallen into the horrible 
pit of Romanism, and Infidelity — that m.y people are leavincr me 
daily and renouncing all interest in me, and that hayinrr^ from- 
eiivj, commenced an attack upon the Methodists, I tim undeserv- 
ing of public sympathy and support. "Is this thy kin tin ess ta 
thy friend" ? Is this the treatment of a christian brother ? Have 
I not reason to complain, after all, that you are the man w^ho has 
*' unchurched his neighbor and cast him out of covenanted mercy"? 
But I forbear to dwell upon this point. We have been forewarned 
that '* if they have called the m^aster of the house Beelzebub, much 
more they of his household"— -that if we would live godly in Christ 
Jesus, we must suffer persecution. And though,, as you suggest,. 
** an enlightened public" may sustain you in this, yet I have one 
consolation of which no earthly powder can deprive me, and it arises 
from the conviction of my own conscience, that ''my witness is 
in Heaven^ my record is on high." 

An intimation is contained in your letter,, that fearing an ex- 
posure, I sued for peace, and peace having been granted, then in 
direct violation of my profisssed desire, another Tract was intra- 



20 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

duced, &;c. &c. Of course you do not mean here that any thing 
of this kind occurred as between you and myself, though one 
would suppose so from reading your letter, but only that you re- 
ceived this information, perhaps, from one of your Leaders. Now, 
as I do not wish to have any controversy with any of these gen- 
tlemen, I will not deny the fact, but will only remark, that I can- 
not possibly imagine anything, from which it could have arisen* 
Let me suo-o-est, that if the minds of these gentlemen had been 
in the same state of excitement with your own, then a casual 
conversation with me, may have been as much mistaken as you 
have mistaken the purport of my first letter, and that inferences 
drawn by them may have been stated to you as facts coming 
from me. This is a very common w^ay of mistake, and some re- 
marks on the subject by Dr. Barns, in his commentary on Eo- 
mans 3; 8th, are exceedingly valuable, to which I respectfully 
refer you. 

But again you say that no *' cry of persecution, of ingratitude, 
or threat of the withdrawal of friendship or money, or all, at this 
late hour, will deter you from this work of justice : nothing but 
a distinct denial on my part of the doctrines of the Tracts, Nos. 
4 & 5, as being the doctrines of our Church." Let the reader 
turn to my letter and see what foundation there is for such talk 
as this. What ** cry of persecution or injustice," what ''threat 
of a withdrawal of friendship or of money," or any thing else — 
what "desire to deter you from this work of justice"? Really 
I supposed that your Lectures were finished — that having every 
thing to yourself, and being allowed to go on without molestation 
or a single word of complaint, you had " accomplished" the whole 
object, " to the best of your ability," and broken every link in our 
Apostolic succession, as you declared that you would do. The 
Lectures were commenced before I left home, and having been 
absent a little more than three weeks, I supposed that you had 
finished. But i[ you have not, then I beg you to go on, and all 
I ask is, that you will communicate )''our arguments to me by 
letter, and I pledge myself, at least to show you some mistakes, 
into which the best of men are liable to fall ; and not doubting 



DEFENDED. 21 

the excellency and sincerity of your character, I shall expect 
when these mistakes are pointed out, that you will cheerfully 
and frankly admit them. ; 

But to the Tracts. Having- seen an advertisement in the Church- 
man, that some Tracts had been published on '^ the Christian 
ministry," I requested the Bookseller, in sending for other books, 
also to send for some of those, and this is the Tract No. 5, to 
which you allude. And what does it contain ? An argument to 
prove the three orders of the ministry as held by the Episcopal 
Church. I cannot therefore deny that it contains our doctrines, 
for in the Preface to our Ordination Service in our Prayer Book 
are these Avords, " It is evident unto all men, diligently reading 
Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles time 
there have been these three orders in the christian ministry, 
Bishops, Priests and Deacons." Surely you Vv^ould not have me 
assume the awful responsibility of denying that, which those old 
Reformers and Martyrs, Cranmer and Eidley and Hooper, have 
declared, " is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scrip- 
ture and ancient authors?" 

But let us see what is the faith of your own Church — not what 
Dr. Bangs says, nor what any individual among your number may 
say, nor how you manage to explain difficulties, but what is the 
faith of your Church, as explained in your Book of Discipline. Do 
you not profess to believe in *' diverse orders" — more than two 
certainly, and not less than three'^ Is not this the faith of that prayer 
which you have taken from our Prayer Book, and incorporated in 
your services of ordination ? What is the title to those services ? 
**The form and manner of making and ordaining of Bishops, El- 
ders and Deacons." In the Episcopal service here, the three or- 
ders of the ministry are expressed, and why is it not so in yours ? 
Would not a plain man so understand it ? But then comes the first 
service for "the ordination of Deacons," taken from the " Ordin- 
ation of Deacons" in the Episcopal Church. Your Bishop, laying 
his hands upon the candidate's head, says, as with us, " Take thou 
authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God, 



22 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
Amen.'' You observe here, that the expression is not in the 
Methodist- Churchy biit, '' in the Church of God,"* And surely it 
ii will not be denied that the individual has 'professedly been ad- 
admitted to one order in the Christian Ministry. 

Then comes the '*Form and manner of ordaining Elders," and 
this is likewise taken from the Form in the Prayer Book of the 
Episcopal Church. The Bishop, with the Elders, laying his hands 
upon the person's head, says, " The Lord pour upon thee the Holy 
Ghost for the office and work of an Elder in the Church of God^ 
now cominitted unto thee, by the imposition of our hands, and be 
thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy sac- 
raments, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost." Surely it will not be pretended that this is the 
same order of the Ministry to which the individual had been ex- 
alted before, when he was made a Deacon ; for evidently it is 
another ordination and one by which he has received a differ.ent 
name and ampler powers. 

But now comes the ''Form of ordaining a Bishop," and this 
too, we find, has been, taken from the Form in the Episcopal 
Church. The address at the laying on of hands is precisely the 
same — " Eeceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bish- 
op in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the impo- 
sition of our hands, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost, Amen ; and remember that thou stir up 
the grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our 
hands, for God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power 
and love and soberness." The intelligent reader will observe 
that there is this difierence between the " Form for the ordination 
of Elders" and that " for the ordination of Bishops," both in the 
Methodist and Episcopal services. When the Elder is ordained, 
no authority is given to him to ordain others, nor is any thing said 

* Dr. Bangs pretend^- that the act of ordinaiion or consecration only gives 
the individual authority to exercise his office, "in that particular branch of the 
Church of Christ in which he thinks himself called to labor as a Gospel Min- 
uter." Page 248. 



■at)Out **the laying on of hands." But in the Form for the ordi- 
nation of Bishops in both services this question is asked, ^* Will 
you be faithful in ordaining, sen-ding or laying hands upon others?'* 
Nov/ then I ask, can it be pretended after all, that this third or- 
dination, so separate and distinct from either of the others-, and 
conferring powers not conferred by either of the others, is still 
nothing more than that of Elders-^that the individual has reaiiy 
been exalted to no higher authority, than that which he possess*- 
«d before? Can it be pretended that this is not as much a third 
order of the ministry as the Eider is a second and the Deacon a 
^rst? Would not the same arguments which destroy the distinc- 
tive character of Bishop, also destroy the distinctive character of 
Elder and of Deacon ? Nay, by the same process of reasoning, 
could it not be shown, that neither of these acts of ordaining con- 
fer any powder at all, and therefore that every order of the minis- 
try, is a mere nullity, an idle ceremony, a solemn mockery, and 
altogether unnecessary to make a man a minister in the Church 
of God? Here lies the very gist of the controversy between the 
Methodists and Episcopalians. We deny the power and authori-- 
ty of self consdt.iited Teachers, We say that you pretend to have 
•the three orders of the ministry as held by us---that you have thie^ 
distinct forms of ordination as set forth m our Prayer Book — -that 
you allow none to ordain but Bishops, and yet that in direct vio- 
lation of the spirit of your ordination vows and prayers, as there - 
recorded, you are obliged to acknowledge, that Mr. Wesley, by 
whom your first Bishop was ordained, was nothing more than a 
Presbyter or Elder; that his ordination, was the same with that 
by which Presbyters are now ordained in the Episcopal Church,- — 
that no authority whatever v/as given to him to ordain others, and 
consequently, that your pretended Episcopacy cannot be sustain- 
ed, and that you ought to acknowledge yourselves Presbyterians, 
in this respect, as you are. We think too, that the use of such a 
service and such prayers, without intending what they mean or 
believing what they say, is a most dangerous practice, and one 
against which we feel most solemnly bound to lift up our warn* 
ing voice, in notes of tenderness and love^ — and we beseech you, 



24 THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCH 

therefore, to reflect upon the consequences, should they rise up in 
judgment to condemn you. Thus to exhort and warn our breth- 
ren, when we honestly think them to be in danger, is both our 
privilege and our duty. 

But hoAv are these arguments met? these warnings parried ? 
Why, Dr. Bangs, and Mr. Steele after him, I understand, are driv- 
en to the necessity of denying that ordination is necessary to a 
valid exercise of the ministerial office— denying that the Metho- 
dists do profess to believe in three orders — endeavoring to show 
that because the names of Bishop and Presbyter are interchange- 
ably used, therefore the office is the same— declaring that your 
third ordination is in fact no ordination at all, but only a setting 
apart of the individual to a special work, in which he had author- 
ty before to be engaged, and then inventing a kind of metaphysi- 
cal distinction between ^- order'* ^ and ''affce," as if Bishops and 
Elders vrere the same order though a diftl^rent office. 

Now let your people read the Tract No. 5, and they will find 
such proofs of the three orders in the christian Ministry, as cannot 
be overthrown; as address themselves in a calm and dispassion- 
ate manner, to sensible men; as make no appeals to the passions 
or prejudices of any individuals ; as impute no corrupt motives to • 
any denomination of people, and if they are really Episcopal, if 
they believe their own most solemn prayers and services, aVid are 
willing to abide by the faith developed in their " Book of Disci- 
pline," then instead of callino: on me to deny the doctrines of the 
Tract, they will rather thank me for its introduction. 

This is strange indeed I That because at my request the Book- 
seller procured a few copies of Tract No. 5 on the Christian Min- 
istry, the Methodist brethren should be aggrieved — that their Min- 
ister should call on me to deny its doctrines, and yet, after all, 
upon examination it is found, that the Tract contains nothing more 
than the faith of the Methodist Episc. Church as set forth in their 
formularies of devotion I Why Sir, are you so determined to de- 
stroy the Episcopal Church, that you are willing to do it even at 
the expense of your own desolation ? Is this the spirit of the Gos- 
speH Does this comport with a hearty love for the truth? If 



DEFENDED. 



m 



you really have the three orders of the Christian Ministry, as in 
your Book of Discipline you profess to have, then the Tract is in 
your favor. But if conscience tells you that you have not these 
three orders — that Mr. Wesley had no right to ordain Dr. Coke 
a Bishop, (hoth being Presbyters,) then the Tract is against you. 
Dr. Bangs says a great deal about " dilemmas,*' and here is one» 
' upon either horn of Avhich, you are permitted to hang. 

Now I come to Tract No, 4, and the doctrines of this Tract too, 
you call upon me to deny, as the doctrines of the Ep'scopal Church, 
Why, my good sir, have you read the Tract ? If you have, 
you must certainly have perceived that it nowhere, even pro* 
fesses^ to contain the doctrines of the Episcopal Church. Ac- 
cording to your own acknowledgment it has neither the name of 
author, printer or publisher, and the very title shows [''^ Metko* 
dism OS hdd by Weslcji'") that its design is, to show the opinions 
and doctrines of Mr. Wesley. Now I should be prettily set to 
work, to deny the doctrines of Mr. AVesley. Then indeed I might 
expect severer treatment, than any I have yet received. But if 
you will point me to any extract which cannot be found in Mr. 
W^esley, then I will make it known to the public in almost any 
way that you may desire, and what is fairer still, as those extracts 
are taken partly from two of Mr. Wesley's sermons, I will engage 
to read both of them entire to my congregation, provided you will 
do the same to yours. I refer to Sermons 109 and 139, and this 
I acknowledge to be a challenge indeed. 

But let us examine some of the doctrines of the Tract. It teach- 
es us that the Methodists were orignally ''zealous members of 
the Church of England, not only tenacious of all her doctrines so 
far as they knewthem,bat of all her discipline, "even to the minu- 
test circumstance." And is not this the truth, as given by Mr. Wes- 
ley himself ? Certainly it is, for I have read it, in his '' Short 
History of Methodism," and much more to the sa^fie purpose. 

This doctrine, therefore, cannot be defied, and when I consid- 
er the place where they originated, (Oxford,) together with the 
great object which they professed to have in viev/, I cannot but 
regard it as remarkable, that another movement of a similar na- 



26 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

ture should again commence there, under circumstances so strik* 
ingly the same. God grant that the Oxford Tractarians as they 
-are called, may be enabled to adhere to their present purpose of 
remaining firm to the d-octrine and discipline of the Church '> even 
to the minutest circumstance." Although they may now be op- 
posed even as the Wesieys were, and names of reproach may bo 
given to them, still I most ardently hope that no opposition may 
be successful, in driving theni^ from the sound principles of the 
•Church. 

But another doctrine of the Tract is, that Mr. Wesley warned 
his followers not to separate from the Church ; and is not this 
-doctrine true? When the question came up, " are we not una- 
wares, by little and Jittle, sliding into a separation from the Church" 
did he not say, ''0, use every means to prevent this : exhort all 
our people to keep close to the Church and sacrament. Warn 
them also against despising the prayers of the Church — against 
calling our Society the Church— against calling our preachers 
Ministers." And speaking of the Church and denying that the 
Methodists were dissenters, did he not say *^ we do not, we dare 
not separate from it. We are not seceders nor do we bear any 
resemblance to them* We set out upon quite opposite principles. 
The seceders laid the xeyy foundation of their work in judging 
and condemning others; we laid the foundation of our work in 
judging and condemning ourselves. They begin every where in 
showing their hearers how fallen the Church and Ministers are ; 
we begin every where in showing our hearers how fallen they 
themselves are. What they dj in America or what their min- 
utes say on this subject is nothing to us, we will keep to the good 
old way." That this is the doctrine of Mr. Wesley, I cannot de- 
ny, for I have just copied it from an edition of his works publish- 
ed at your own '* Conference OfFice.'^^ 

But another doctrine of the Tract is, that Mr. Wesley did not 
appoint his preachers to administer the sacraments — that he made 
a great distinction betv/een the right to preach, and the authority 
to administer the sacraments, and that he declared that those who 
did presume to administer the sacraments" renounced the first 



DEFENDED. 27 

principle of Methodism, which was wholly and solely to preach 
the Gospel/' Can this doctrine be derxied ? Surely not, for it is 
the whole object of the sermon 189 to Lmfold and explain it. 

How plainly did he address the preachers, those whom he re- 
garded as commissioned to call eir.ners to repentance. "It does 
by no means follow from hence thai ye are commissioned to bapr 
tize or to administer the Lord's Supper. Ye never dreamed of 
this for ten or twenty years after ye began to preach. Ye did not 
then like Korah, Dathan and Abiram "seek the priesthood also." 
Ye knew no man taketli this honor to himself but he that is call- 
ed of God as was Aaron. O, contain j-ourselves within your own 
bounds, be content with preaching the Gospel." 

How prophetically did be forewarn them of the temptations 
which they would meet with. "Ye yourseh^es were at first called 
in the Church of England, and though ye have and will have 
a thousand temptations to leave it, and set up for yourselves, re^ 
gard them not ; be Church of England men still. Do not cast 
away the peculiar glory vv^iich God has put upon you and frustrate 
the design of Providence, the very end for v/hich God raised you 
up." And this sermon was preached in i7v89 — five years after the 
the time when it is pretended that Mr. ¥/esley appointed the Bish- 
ops for America; and such a reference is made, in the sermon, 
to the Methodists in America, as to show that Mr. Vv^'esley knew 
how to make a just and reasonable distinction, between the Church 
of England, considered in all those essential features which con- 
stitute a true and living branch of the Church Catholic, and the 
Church of England as connected with the state, which in itself is 
an accidental circumstance, and which her best friends most deep- 
ly and sincerely regret. 

^^ But to remove all cavil or doubt as to Mr. Wesley's reference, to 
show that when he declared against separation he did not refer to 
the Church of England as connected w^ith the State, but to the 
Church of England as a branch of the Church Catholic or univer- 
sal — the one body established by our Saviour, — we point you to his 
remarks in relation to the great reformation, where he acknowl- 
edges that the " grand stumbling block of all, in the way of the 



23 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

sincere members of the Church of Eome, v/as their open and 
avowed separation (the open and avowed separation of Luther 
and Calvin) from the Church." In this respect you are aware that 
the Reformation in England was distinguished from that on the 
Continent — the English reformers always protested against sep- 
aration — their simple object was to refonn^ not to destroy — tore- 
tain every thing sound, scriptural and apostolic, and to remove 
only the corruptions, and hence they affirmed that "the Church 
was no more a different Church because of the Reformation, than 
a man is a different man because he has washed his face." This 
is the distinction to which Mr. Wesley refers, and then he goes 
on to speak of different separations from the Reformed Church of 
England. Of the Baptists he says, that their " warm dispute was 
concerning one of the external ordinances, and as their opinion 
hereof totally differed from all the other memxbers of the Church 
of England, so they soon openly declared their separation from 
it." Then speaking of the Presbyterians and Independents he re- 
marks, that " they also spent a great part of their time and strength 
concerning the circumstantials of religion, and for the sake of 
these, separated from the Church;" and with these he contrasts 
the character of the Methodists, and shows in what manner the 
latter differed from the former. " They avowedly separated from 
the Church; we utterly disavow any such design. They sever- 
ally and almost continually inveighed against the doctrines and 
discipline of the Church they left ; we approve both the doctrines 
and discipline of our Church." 

Now that these are the doctrines of Mr. Wesley, I cannot de- 
ny, nor can I see how it is possible for any one to doubt the fact, 
who is at all acquainted with his writings. So far as the Episco- 
pal Church is concerned, all I have to say is, that she has never 
affirmed or denied, to my knovvdedge, any thing which Mr. Wesley 
wrote, and certainly she has never authorised me to do so. Indeed, 
I cannot see why you might not as well call upon some minister 
among the "Methodist Protestants" to deny these doctrines, as 
to call upon me, for it is well known that one ground of their sep- 
aration from you, is your manifest departures from Mr. Wesley. 



DEFENDED. 29 

However, if you would like to know my opinion of the Tract, 
this I am ready to give you. Whilst I think it contains a faith- 
ful account of Mr. Wesley's doctrines, at the same time, I am 
of the opinion, that it speaks too highly of Mr. Wesley him*- 
self, and that one might conclude from reading the Tract, that 
Mr. Wesley never departed in his conduct from the sentiments 
which he so often and so strongly asserted. This I know, is the 
opinion of many, and that Mr. Wesley himself always persisted 
in declaring that he had never separated from the Church. But 
to my mind it is perfectly plain that he acted inconsistently with 
his principles, — and this is the opinion of those who knew him 
best. 

Hence his brother Samuel early wrote to his mother, declar- 
ing, that ^Hhry (the Methodists) design a separation, ^^ and in 
the same letter, speaking of their rules in relation to men and 
women sitting apart, (which, by the way, are still retained ih your 
Book of Discipline, though I believe you do not adhere to them,) 
and to the band societies, he says — " Their societies are sufficient 
to dissolve all other societies but their own. Will any man of com- 
mon sense or spirit suffer any domestic to be in a bond, engaged 
to relate every thing without reserve, to ^ve or ten people, that 
concerns the person's conscience, how much soever it may concern 
the family? Ought any married persons to be there, unless hus- 
band and wife be there together ? This is literally putting asun- 
der whom God hath joined together. As I told Jack, I am not 
afraid that the Church should excommunicate him, (discipline is 
at too low an ebb,) but that he should excommunicate the Church. 
It is pretty near." 

So in the following correspondence between John and Charles : 
the latter you will observe, really understood that his brother had 
acted inconsistently with his avowed and well known sentiments. 
These Letters v/ere written as late as 1785, about one year after 
the supposed ordination of Dr. Coke. In the reply of Mr. Charles 
Wesley, reference is made to the American Eevolution as a "cause- 
less and unprovoked rebellion." — and this, no doubt, was intend- 
ed as a home thrust at his brother, who had written against the 
Reyolution and declared it a *' Rebellion,^* 



30 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

*' Plymouth, August 19, 1785. 

** Dear Brother,— I will tell you my thoughts with all simplicity, and wait 
for better inform-ition. if you agree with me, well : ii not, we can (as Mr. 
Whitefieid used to say) agree to disagree. 

For these forty yenrs I Irive been: in doubt concerning that question, ** What 
obedience is due to the BisJmps f 0!)edienre 1 always paid to them, in obe- 
dience to the law? of the land. It is in obedience to those laws that I have 
never exercised in England those powers which I believe God has given rae. 
But this in no wi&e interferps with my rsmmning in tke Church of England, 
frorn which I liaxe no thotq desire tJ Siiparata than 1 had fifty years ago. I still 
attend all the ordinances of the Cii^uTch at all opportiinrdes; and I constantly 
and earnestly a{iviS6 all thai arc cannecied loith im so to. do. 

All those my reasons against a separation from the Church I subscribe to- 
still. What, then, are you frightened at ? I no more separate from it now 
than I did in the year 1758. I submit still to bs governors. I do, indeed^ 
vary from them in some pointr. of doclrine, a-^d some of discipline, by preach- 
ing abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming societies. I 
walk by the same rule I have done for betv/een forty and fifty years. I do noth- 
ing rashly 1 It is net likely I should. The high day of my blood is over, if 
you will go on hand in hand with me, do, Bnt do not hinder me if you will 
Bot help. Perhaps if you had kept close to me I might have done better. How- 
ever, with or without help, I creep on. And as I have been hitherto, so I 
trust i shall always be, yo'^r affectionate friend and' brother. ^ 

J WZSLEY." 

The reader will observe the strange acknowleclgeinent of his 
iouU in relation to ''the obedience due to the Bishops," and this^. 
too, a year after it is said that he had actually decided the mat- 
ter, and Vv'as fully persuaded that "Bishops and Presbyters are 
the same order." But to the reply of his brother. 

" Map.ybone, September 8, 1795. 

*■• BsAR Brotheti — ^I vvill tell you my thoughts with the same simplicity.^ 
There is nodanger of our quarrelling; for the second blow makes the quarrelr 
and you are the last man upon earth vrhom I should wish to quarrel with. " 

*'I don't understand what *obedi?nce to the Bishops' you dread. They 
Save left us alone, and left us to act just as we pleased, for these i^ifty years,. 
At present, some o( them are quite friendly toward us, (particularly toward 
you.) The churches are open to you; and never could there be less pretence 
Ibr a separation. 

" You write ' All those reasons against a separation from the Church [ sub- 
ecribe to etill. What, then, are you finghtened at ? I no more separate from 
it than I did in the year 1735. I submit s'iil to its governors, I do, indeed,, 



DEFENDED. 



Si 



▼ary from them, by * * * preaching abroad, by prnying extempore, and 
by forming societies,* (m"ght you not add, and by ordaining? ) ' I walk by the 
same rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly!* 

^'If I could prove your actual: separation, 1 would not; neither wish to see 
it proved by any other. But do you- not allov/ that the Doctor has separated T 
Do you not know and app ove of his avowed design and resolution to get all: 
the Methodists of the three kingdoms into' a distinct, compact body, a new 
Methodist Episcop-.! Church, of his own 1 t|ave you seen his ordination ser- 
fjion. Is the '■ high day of 'his * blood over V Does he, ' do nothing rashly V 
Flave you not made you^5^elf the author of ail kls. actions ? 1 need not remind^ 
you. Qui facit per alium: faeit per se. 

I must not leave unansvvered your surprising qiiestio!>, ^ What, thenv «re yon 
frightened at V Ax the Doctor's rashness, and your supporting him in his am- 
bitious pursuits— at an approaching scliism- — as causeless and unprovoked as^ 
the American Rebellion.— at your eiernal: disgrace, and at all those evils which 
your reasons describe,, 

" * If you' will go on hand in hand, ^o.* I do go on i^i t:he old way, in whicH' 
we set out together, and trust to continue in it till J iinisli my course. 

*' 'Perhaps if you had kept close to me, I fnight have done better.* When, 
you took that fatal step, at Bristol, (ordaining,) I kept as close to you as close 
eould be ; fori -wis all the time at your elbow,. You might certainly ' hav© 
done better,' if you had- taken me into your councils 

*' I thank you for your intention to rem/iinmy friend. Herein my heart is- 
as your heart. Whom God bath joined, let no man put asunder. We have 
taken each other, for better, for worse, till death do us — pari ? No ; but 
eternally unite. Therefore, in the love wiiich never faileth, I am. your af- 
lectionate friend and brother, G. Wesley." 

feajetter toDr. Chandler vvritten only a short time before the- 
^ibove correspoiidence,.Mr. Charles "Wesley said,"! can scarcely 
yet believe,, that in his eighty second year, my brother, my old. 
intimate friend and companion, should have assumed the Episco-- 
pal character,, ordained Eiders,, consecrated a Bishop, and sent 
him to ordain the Lay-preachers m America.. I was then in Bris- 
tol at his QlhoWyijel he never gave me the least hint of Ms inle7iiion^ 
How was, he surprised into so rash an action" ? 

*'Lord Mansfield told me last year that ordinaiion was sepnra- 
tio7K This my brother does not and will not see; or that he has 
rennun.ced the fxind/ples and practices of his. lohole Ife; that he 
has acted contrary to all his declarations, protestations and vv'rit- 
ings; robbed his friends of their boasting; realized the nag*s 



32 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

head ordination; and left an indellible blot on his name as long 
as it shall be remembered." 

These letters should be read in connection with Dr. Coke's let- 
ter to Mr. Wesley, desiring ordination from him because he wish- 
ed his ''influence in America,'^ and telling him it could be done 
** in Mr, C's house in his chamber ; " also Dr. Coke's letter to Bish- 
op White, in which he acknowledges that he had exceeded the 
authority given him by Mr. Wesley — that Mr. W. disapproved 
of his proceedings, and in which he certainly manifested a desire 
of becoming a real Bishop : and also Dr. Coke's letter to Mr. Wm. 
Wilberforce as late as 1813, in which the same desire is express- 
ed for the Episcopate in India. But I fear that I have already 
exhausted your patience, and as the whole subject of Methodist 
Episcopacy may come up in my next, 

I subscribe myself 

Very respectfully, &c, 

James A. Bolles. 

P. S. There are several things in \^our Letter to which I should 
be glad to reply, such as ^''unchurching others^'''' claiming to he the 
only ^^ 'primitive y Apostolic Church^^^ ''^ the Church of the United 
States,^^ ** bigoted exclusiveness,^^ &c., but perhaps it maybe time 
enough for me to pay my respects to you on these points, when 
you have declared the works from which these sentiments are de- 
rived, or where it is that such ** lordly claims," as you call them, 
are any where asserted. 



DEFENDED. 38 

Batavia, Oct. 7, 1842. 
To the Eev. Allen Steele: — 

Dear Sir — Since the forwarding of my last letter, I have had 
some fear lest my omission to notice a few passages in yours, 
should be construed into an intentional disrespect, and therefore 
I have concluded to send you another by way of supplement. At 
the same time, too, as this correspondence may be protracted to a 
considerable length, it has seemed to me not improper to hasten 
the consideration of some of the topics which must necessarily 
pass under review. 

You object to the reading of Dr. Chapman's sermons in my 
Church, ''than which," you say, "none, perhaps, are more ex- 
clusive or denunciatory." 

In the latter part of the summer, long after the ciculation of 
your Books and Tracts, I gave notice, that for the purpose of in- 
structing my own people, and especially the younger members of 
my congregation, in the doctrine, discipline and worship of the 
Church, I should hold a meeting in the Lecture Room on Sunday 
evenings. In accordance with this notice no efforts were made 
to induce the attendance of other people — the time, place and 
manner of conducting the services w^ere all of the most quiet, 
peaceable and unobtrusive nature, and nothing could surprise me 
more than to learn, that the exercise of this plain duty and right, 
on my part, and in a way so unexceptionable even to the most 
censorious, should have given you offence. What must we con- 
clude but that the subject of Episcopacy is a sore one to you, and 
oue which you are scarcely willing that the people should under- 
stand, as it is explained by Episcopalians themselves? 

But is it really true, that the Sermons of Dr. Chapman are open 
to the objections w^hich you make — that the}^ breath a spirit so 'V';r- 
dusive and demmctalory^^? So far from it, that they are univer- 
sally regarded by all who are aquainted with them, as models of 
Christian kindness and courtesy. 

There is but one of the sermons, however, which relates par- 
ticularly to Methodism, and only a part of that (a few pagei-:) is 
taken up with the exammation of Methodist Episcopacy, and in 

3 



34 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

order to avoid even the appearance of making any attack upon 
you, this sermon was passed over, so that in no way puhlichj of 
privately, can you say, that I had given you any just provocation 
for the course which you have seen proper to pursue. True it is, 
that I was sorry to pass over the sermon referred to, for in all my 
reading I have never seen a fairer illustration of that divinely 
charitable spirit, in which all theological controversies should be 
conducted. Though some might fail to be convinced by the ar- 
guments, yet no one, I am sure, could be otherwise than charm- 
ed and captivated by the spirit. For instance, when he comes 
to allude to the subject of Methodism^ the author commences m 
this way : 

^' And here I am compelled by a sense of duty,, to speak of a sep- 
aration from the original Church of a somewhat different charac- 
ter, although the difference is evidently nominal, rather than real. 

"We have amongst us a denomination, respectable for their 
numbers and distinguished for the warm fervor of their religion,. 
w4io, while they reject in terms the ministry of Presbyters, da 
but conform in terms to that of Bishops. I need not name then!-' 
They trace their history to the year seventeen hundred and twen- 
ty-nine, and had their origin in the partial secession of a pious 
and talented Presbyter of the Church of England from the pale 
of her communion." 

With this introduction,, in which there is nothing exclusive or 
denunciatory, the axithor then goes on to state afeio of the facts 
in relation to Methodist Episcopacy, and to prove the spurious 
character of its pretensions, and then he concludes the argument 
with this declaration; — "' Presbyterian ordination it undoubtedly 
has, but Episcopalit has not. And believe me, brethren, I regret 
the circumstance. It is no gratification to me that its episcopacy 
is manifestly spurious ; nor do I take any pleasure in stating these 
things, except as matters of fact open to the inspection of all, and 
the legitimate subjects of fair, dispassionate inquiry. In this we. 
are tolerated by the laws of the land, and God forbid that it should 
be otherwise ; God forbid that we should not speak the truth upon 
a concern so grave and so solemn, either from an apprehension of 



DEFENDED. 3^ 

the consequences or because the truth may give offence. I have 
learnt a very different lesson from our Saviour Christ. When 
Speaking 'to those Jews which believed on him,' he said, ^ifye 
continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye 
shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.' I have 
learnt indeed, that Jesus of Nazereth, a man approved of God by 
miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him, never hes- 
itated, on all suitable occasions, to discourse freely and unreserv- 
edly upon all the errors, whether of faith or practice, by which 
his hearers were liable to be seduced; and I breath no wish for 
higher authority to exculpate me for presenting the fullest infor- 
mation upon the subject I have undertaken to discuss. Abuse is 
one thing, but argument is another. Misstatements are to be se- 
verely reprehended, but important facts are worthy of all accep- 
tation. To pretend that they are sometimes of such a nature that 
they cannot be conveyed in the spirit of meekness and humility, 
of charity and brotherly kindness, is altogether idle and extrava- 
gant. Can you not reprove the vices of the sinner ^yithout hating 
his person? Can you not denounce an heretical doctrine Avith- 
out inveighing against the heresiarch who maintains it ? Then 
are there no real graces of Christianity to soften the heart, to an- 
imate the soul, and give utterance to the lips which should keep 
knowledge." 

Although this extract is long, and is abundantly sufficient to 
exculpate the author from the charges of " exclusiveness and de- 
nunciation," yet the conclusion of the sermon is so excellent that 
I cannot help extracting it as not undeserving of our imitation in 
the work in which we are at present engaged. 

" For myself I will yield to none in the tolerant feelings I de* 
light to indulge. Towards the wise and good of all denomina- 
tions, my bosom expands with the liveliest fraternal affection and 
sympathy. I rejoice in the well founded belief that they are 
Christians, such Christians as adorn the doctrine of God their 
Saviour, upon earth, and as will hereafter enjoy his blissful pres- 
ence in heaven. I can, with truth, give the right hand of fellow- 
ship to all the saints of the Most High God, let their scriptural 



36 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

views upon some points be ever so variant, and their ministr}' and 
worship ever so adverse to my conceptions of the Primitive Church 
and the beauty of its holiness. I can pray for them and breathe 
with them the same prayer to heaven. I can sit down with them 
before the samiC table of the Lord, and call him to remembrance 
with thankfulness as the blessed author of our common salvation. 
I can this day, with the utmost cordiality, minister to them the 
emblematic flesh and blood of our redemption. Through life I 
can make allowance for their imperfections as I wish them to 
niake allowance for mine. I can give honor where honor, praise 
where praise, is due. And when my last hour is come, I am sure 
that it will prove no diminution of my happiness to be conscious 
that I can only hope to enter the mansions of glory in company 
v/ith myriads on myriads of my fellow Christians of a different 
persuasion, over whom will be pronounced the approving sentence, 
" Well done, ye good and faithful servants, enter ye into the joy 
of your Lord. 

''Nevertheless I must, while here below, contend, most earn- 
estly contend, for the faith of Christ. It matters not to me to 
what it relates, whether to internal graces or to external order ; 
it is all holy, it is all divine, and it is all imperative. You have 
no right to say of one Gospel truth, that it is immaterial, or of 
one Gospel institution, that it is either indifferent or superfluous; 
that it may be acceded to or resisted at pleasure. Hence I can 
never reconcile it to my conscience to be so tender of the mere 
opinions of men, as to lay my hand upon my mouth, and my 
mouth in the dust, rather than controvert a favorite prejudice or 
expose myself to an injurious reproach. But while I live, I will 
endeavor through good report and through evil report, to serve 
the Lord with fear, and of him only will I be afraid. While I 
live, although it will be impossible to renounce or even to modify 
the truths this day delivered, I will not be inflamed by the fires- 
of a persecuting spirit ; I will not suffer this fiend of hell to rankle 
in my heart; I will not cease to remember that, "now abideth 
faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is char- 
it]r." And still, in defence of the true Church, the true Zion and 



DEFENDED. 37 

Jerusalem so often and so unjustly assailed, will I neither hold 
my peace nor rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as 
brightness and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth." 

Now, my dear Sir, after this long extract from the Sermons of 
Dr. Chapman, and from the only Sermon in the whole volume 
which relates directly to Methodism, our readers can judge for 
themselves of its "exclusive and denunciatory spirit" ; and if I 
mistake not, they will be apt to think with myself, that you could 
scarcely have read the Book when you were pleased to speak of 
it in the manner recorded in your letter. 

But more than this. To the excellency of the Sermons I have 
the testimony of an individual who was once a distinguished 
member of your own body, and who, from his peculiar situation 
as a Layman and a man of undoubted talents and piety, is well 
calculated to act as umpire betw^een us. I refer to John Esten 
Cooke, M. D., Professor of the Theory and Practice of Physic 
in the Transylvania University. Under God, the Sermons of Dr. 
Chapman were the means of leading his reflections to the impor- 
tant subjects discussed in them, and the account which he has 
himself given, is in the following words : — 

*' Soon after that time," (after the interest which he had taken in 
the establishment of a Methodist paper,) " a volume of Sermons by 
the Rev. Dr. Chapman, for which I had subscribed, was brought 
home, and for some days no attention was paid to it. At a leis- 
ure moment, curiosity led me to look into it, w^hen I found the man- 
ner and style so striking, and the subject so new to me, that I de- 
termined to read the Book. I had heard that the Church denied, 
the validity of Presbyterian ordination, but had never thought it 
worth while to enquire into a claim, at first sight, apparently so 
extravagant. I was determined to see what could be said in sup- 
port of such pretensions. I read carefully the first seven sermons, 
by which I was most forcibly struck. The language^ chaste- — the 
style, perspicuous — I was carried along without labor, and com- 
prehended without the slightest effort. The manner of handling 
the subject was strikingly modest and as charitable as any man 
could reasonably desire. Supporting the doctrine of the invalidi- 



38 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

ty of ordination by Presbyters, and tbe validity of Episcopal ordin- 
ation alone, the author proceeds in maintaining the argument 
without uncharitable reflections, and when he condemns, does it 
in the mildest language, and often or always with expressions of 
good opinion of the motives of the opposite party. If there is any 
thing offensive to any one, in the book, it is a quotation — and quo- 
tations a man is bound to state as they are stated by the author 
from whom they are taken. The strength of the direct argument 
for the doctrine and of that indirect one growing out of the evil 
consequence of schism, or division from the Church, contained in 
some 01 the following sermons, is such, that I was compelled to 
say to myself, ii these facts are so. this doctrirxe is the truth. 

" Uneasiness now sprung up in my mind. The question arose, 
What if it be true ? Can you leave your friends, your intimate 
associates in what has engaged so much of your intention, your 
efforts, your ardent desires for eiorhteen years, and go to a people 
who — prejudice whispered — are no people ? The answer of con- 
science was, if it be the truth, embrace it, and leave the conse- 
quences to him who revealed his will to man for his guidance. 
The question now was, is this doctrine true ? To determine this 
without delay, I sought information from ministers of the princi- 
pal denominations involved in the doubt, as to the validity of Pres- 
byterian ordination, viz : — the Presbyterians, the Methodists and 
Baptists. With one consent they all refeiTed me to Millers letters 
on thissuhject. This book I immediately obtained. Emory and 
Bangs were also mentioned, and were likewise obtained. Meet- 
ing Dr. Chapman in the street, I enquired of him also, what were 
the standard works on this controversy. He also mentioned Miller 
and stated that Bowden had answered him. He also mentioned 
Lord King, (by whom Wesley was influenced,) and Slaters ori- 
ginal draft in answer to King, as well as Potter, on Church gov- 
ernment, and Hooker's works. 

I immediately commenced reading Miller with great attention — 
read, over and over, the arguments respecting the order of the 
Church in the time of the Apostles and for centuries afterwards, 
with his quotations from such of the Fathers as gould be procured 



DEFENDED. 39 

conyeniently, and with regard to those which I had not, I was en- 
abled to form a very good idea from comparing him with Bowden. 
Thus, if he quoted a passage from an author which I had not the 
means of consulting, Bowden was examined to see what reply 
v/as made; if admitted by him it could not be questioned; if not 
admitted, Miller's reply to BoAvden's answer was examined, and 
if necessary^ Bowden^s rejoinder to Miller's reply. So that from 
the two works of each, it was not a difficult matter, with care, to 
make out what was agreed to by both these able disputants, and 
what w^as asserted^ but when answered, not maintained in the re- 
ply, and therefore given up; in short, it was not difficult to get at 
the truth. The result of the whole investigation, after six weeks 
close inquiry, was a thorough conviction of the truth of the doc- 
trine that Presbyterian ordination is unauthorized by Scripture, 
and therefore entirely invalid." 

Such is the statement given by Dr. Cooke, and I hope, there- 
fore, that no misrepresentations in relation to the Sermons of Dr. 
Chapman, will so prejudice the serious enquirer after truth, as to 
prevent an examination of them. Indeed, I cannot look upon the 
^^ hue and cry" which has recently been raised throughout the 
country against the Episcopal Church, denouncing her as ^'Po- 
pish, exclusive, intolerant, bigoted," and almost everything else 
which the imagination can invent, to alarm the community, and 
which has its origin in the fact that so many are becoming tired 
of the evils of schism and are returning into the bosom of the 
Church, — I cannot but look upon this "hue and cry" as a cun- 
ning artifice to prevent the people from making a serious and so- 
ber examination into the matter — a kind of attempt to convince 
the world, that the claims of the Church are really too absurd and 
ridiculous to merit the serious attention of sensible men. Now, 
all we ask is, that people will follow the example of Dr. Cooke; 
that they will read and examine for themselves ; that they will in- 
vestigate the whole subject calmly and prayerfully; that they 
will not be satisfied with any popular harangues addressed to the 
lowest passions of our nature ; that they will not allow any sense- 
less clamours to drown the voice of reason and religion, but that 



40 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

in the fear of God, they will honestly and soberly enquire " wheth- 
er these things he soJ^^ 

But I pass on to the consideration of some other topics sugges- 
ted by your letter. 

You will readily grant, that it is a common maxim of justice^ 
admitted in every treatise on ethical science, and explained by 
Dr. Barnes in his commentary on the passage referred to in my 
last, that 110 individual is resjmnsihle for the inferences which oth- 
ers might draw from his doctrines. This, I say, is a common max- 
im of justice, admitted in every treatise on ethical science, and 
one against which a man cannot sin without violating in letter or 
in spirit the ninth commandment of his Maker. But what is here 
true as to individuals, is true, also, as to bodies of men. We have 
no right to charge upon the latter any inferences of our own, or 
to misrepresent the real doctrines which they teach. 

Suppose, now, that you apply this rule to the doctrines of the 
Episcopal Church. In the Apostle's and Nicene creeds — creeds 
which have come down from the purest days of Chtistianity — 
ihe declares her faith " f /i one Catholic and Apostolic Church^^ ; 
and in the preface to the ordination service, she speaks of the 
Ministry as an essential part of the Church, and declares, "that 
from the Apostle's times there have been these three orders of 
Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons," and 
diat she cannot alloAV any to minister at her altars who have not 
received Episcopal ordination. This is the faith of the Church, 
and upon this faith she has ever acted. But at the same time, in 
the declaration of this faith she pronounces no direct sentence of 
condemnation against any who may happen to differ from her in 
judgment — she consigns no individuals or sects to pains or pen- 
alties, merely because they do not receive her testiinony in this 'par- 
ticular, but allowing them the privilege of thinking and acting 
for themselves, she claims the same equal and undoubted privi- 
lege of thinking and acting for herself; and this right of holding 
the faith, in a pure conscience, she thinks she ought to be per- 
mitted to enjoy in kindness and in charity. 

But suppose, that instead of allowing this privilege to her, you 



DEFENDED. 41 

assert that her principles are subversive of those which are held 
by every other denomination of Christians ; that they are popish 
and tyrannical; that they unchurch all other sects and consign 
them over to the uncovenanted mercies of God; that you will, 
therefore, enter an eternal protest against her lordly claims; that 
you will break every link in her Apostolic succession, and this 
fancied superiority she shall not be permitted to enjoy. True it 
is, that she has as much right to believe in three orders as others 
have in two or in one; that in this respect she but conforms to 
every well regulated society under heaven, because that in none 
are the officers all upon the same level; — true it is, that she has 
as much right to believe in a succession of Bishops as others have 
in a succession of Presbyters, (for all really believe in a success- 
ion,) ; true it is, that she has no where avowed the intention of 
*' unchurching others or consigning them over to the uncovenant- 
ed mercies of God" — this is not her language, but the inference^' 
which others have drawn from her doctrines ; still, notwithstand- 
ing all this, her claims are " exclusive, bigoted, uncharitable, and 
deserving the execration of the commxunity." 

Now I ask you, my friend, is this the dictate of christian love ? 
Is this the kindness of brethren in Christ ? Is this the v/ay to 
convince us of our error or our sin? Nay, more, is it morally 
honest to charge the Church with doing that which she has never 
done, excepting by inference, and when that inference is one 
w^hich you yourself, or others for you, have drawn from her doc- 
trines ? 

Let us consider the expression — to *' unchurch^' and *' consign 
people over to the uncovenanted mercies of God,''^ There is some- 
thing frightful about it, and weak nerves are apt to lift up their 
hands in holy horror whenever it is pronounced. But what does 
it mean? where does it occur? In our prayers? in our articles ? 
in any of our authorized expositions of truth ? No Sir ; but with- 
in a period comparatively recent, it has originated and been han- 
ded down, and is now become stereotyped for the use of all who 
desire to excite a prejudice against the Church. But what does 
it mean? That the Episcopal Church has undertaken to excom- 



42 THfi EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

municate the good christian people of all other denominations-r» 
to cast them out of the Church of Christ and of the promises of 
his covenans ? This, undoubtedly, is the meaning which it is 
intended to convey, and yet, so far is this from being true, that 
the great desire of her soul is rather to church than to unchurch 
them, and her voice of invitation is ever lifted up, urging them to 
come to her communion. Bat perhaps I shall be told that it 
means nothing more than this — that in the opinion of Episcopali- 
ans, the good christian people of other denominations do not real- 
ly belong to the Church of Christ, and consequently that they 
have no claim or title to the covenant promises of membership I 
Vv^ell, suppose that it does mean this, and that this is really our 
opinion. Have we not a right to this opinion? and if we honest- 
ly entertain it, is it not our duty to say so ? Can it be that we 
have not the right to speak what we honestly believe to be the 
truth, even in love ? Although your people ma}^ be " good peo- 
ple,'' much better and wiser than we pretend to be ourselves, 
still no one will presume to say that you are infallible, nor that 
possibly some error may not cleave to you ; and therefore, if we 
are honestly persuaded that you are in error, is it not both our 
duty and our privilege to tell you so, provided only, that we nev- 
er transgress the bounds of christian meekness and love ? — that we. 
never employ the language of intemperate zeal and abuse ? Can 
you justl}^ be angr}' with us because we tell you what we honest- 
ly believe to be the truth ? Is this any reason why you should 
regard us as your enemy? We are perfectly willing that you 
should comba<^ this opinion; that you should endeavor to satisfy 
your own consciences and to convince us of our mistake, and we 
do not object to the proper manifestation, on your part, of energy 
i|,nd zeal. But we do deny your right to abuse, or to misrep- 
resent us, or to heap upon us the language of invective and re- 
proach. You may tell us that our opinions are exclusive — to this, 
we do not object; for, we think v/e can prove to you that they are 
not ; we think that we can prove to you that sectarianism is more 
exclusive than Catholicism. But when you go farther than this 
and call us names of reproach, and stigmatze us as *' lordly/* 



DEFENDED. 43 

" bigoted," ** popish," '' t}Tannical," then we lift up our hands and 
tell you to beware, and remind you of the words of Christ, *' judge 
not, that ye be not judged, condemn not, that ye be not con- 
demned." 

But suppose that our opinions are " exclusive." Does it neces- 
«aril follow that they are unchristian or untrue ? By no means. 
The christian religion is exclusive, for it excludes all other reli- 
gions, but it is not, therefore, untrue. The doctrine of one only 
living and true God is exclusive, for it excludes all other gods ; 
and yet, who will pretend that it is therefore unchristian or un- 
true ? The declaration that there is but ** one name under heaven 
whereby any man can be saved," is exclusive, for it excludes ev» 
ery other name and every other m.ode of salvation, and yet, how 
unjust would be the inference that it is therefore unchristian or 
untrue. Indeed, there is one sense in which all the doctrines of 
Christianity are exclusive, for they exclude the opposite errors; 
and may we not, therefore, reasonably argue, that the very ex- 
clusiveness of the doctrine of "' one holy Catholic and Apostolic 
Church" is rather an evidence of its truth than of its falsehood. 

Although in one sense, therefore, all the doctrines of Christian- 
ity are exclusive^ still, in another and a more important sense they 
are inclusive^ for they include all truths and truth alone can ulti- 
mately produce the greatest good to the greatest number, Th^ 
gi'and question to be considered, therefore, in reference to any of 
these doctrines is, not v/hether they are ^' exclusive," but wheth- 
er they are true. 

But you must allow me to say, that the Episcopal Church has 
never, even expressed, the opinion, that the christian people of 
other denominations are not members of the Church of Christ ; 
much less can it be shown that she has ever '^unchurched others 
and consigned them over to the uncovenanted mercies of God." 
She prays for *^ all who profess and call themselves Christians, 
that they may hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of 
peace and in righteousness of life." She invites all who havo 
*' truly and earnestly repented of their sins, are in love and char- 
ity with their neiijhbors, arid intend to lead a new life," to come 



44 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

to her communion. At the same time she declares to all, as the 
poice of the Universal Church at all times and in every place^ and 
from the beginning, that Baptism is the outward act by which alone 
-we can be admitted to the membership of Christ's kingdom, and 
that the right of administering baptism belongs to that ministry 
which Christ has established, which has never been destroyed, 
and which, in her opinion, consists of the three orders of Bishops, 
Priests and Deacons. This is her solemn testimony and firm be- 
lief. But at the same time she steps not out of her own rank to 
praise or censure others. She utters no uncharitable sentence of 
condemnation against any. She is contented with the plain and 
simple declaration and manifestation of the truth. Not, of course, 
that the Church has no opinion in relation to the practice of oth- 
ers, nor that her opinions never come in conflict with others, for 
truth must ever come in conflict with error ; but that she never 
pronounces the uncharitable sentence of condemnation against 
any. And when, therefore, an attempt is made to excite against 
us the indignation of the community in consequence of this pre- 
tended ground of defence, we cannot but feel, in the sorrow of our 
' heart, that truth has been violated, and that the cause of Christ 
has been deeply wounded in the very house of his friends. 

We are conscious, however, that much of this misreprenta- 
tion arises from ifjnorance. People do not understand the Church. 
They read little or nothing in her defence or in explanation of 
her doctrines and services. Every thing that is said by the Ro- 
?nanists on the one hand and by the ultra Protestants on the other, 
is greedily seized upon, and christian Ministers, taking their ar- 
guments from some controversial work, without ever examining 
the opposite side, reiterate in their pulpits the most preposterous 
statements ; and all this we would not presume to deny, with per- 
fect sincerity, and simph', because they are really ignorant of the 
question at issue and of the facts in the case. 

This is the apology which we make. We impute no corrupt 
motives to any ; we charge them not with intentional misrepre- 
^ntation ; but we trust in God, that the time is not far distant 



^ 



DEFENDED. 45 

when the peoph will examine for themselves, and when both 
sides of the controversy shall be well understood. 

In the mean time, we feel no alarm for the Church, for we be- 
lieve that she is founded upon a Eock ; that she does not depend 
upon human arguments or earthly power ; and we are verily per- 
suaded, that those who are fighting against her, are really fight- 
ing against God, though they themselves may be ignorant of it. 

You speak in your letter of " self-styled successors of the Apos- 
tles, ^^ and of their " lordly claims, ^^ as though there was some- 
thing arrogant and preposterous in the claim of Apostolic suc- 
oession. But suppose, now, that I should retort this language, 
(which God forbid,) do you think that you are entirely invulner- 
able ? Do you not know that there are but two ways by which 
an individual may be commissioned by Christ to act in his behalf 
and as his ambassador? That he must either derive his com- 
mission directly and immediately, as St. Paul did, or else he must 
derive it indirectly and mediately, as Timothy and Titus did, by 
the ordination of men having authority? And which, I ask you, 
is the more arrogant and preposterous and lordly claim — to claim 
the extraordinary and direct commission after the manner of St. 
Paul, and with none of the miraculous qualifications of St. Paul to 
sustain the claim, or to claim the commission in that ordinary and 
common mode which the Saviour has established in his Church ? 
Which is the more arrogant and lordly ? But I will not press the 
question, and therefore turn from it to another. 

What is meant by the Apostolic succession? Did not the Sa- 
viour commission the Apostles ? Did not they commission others ? 
Did not St. Paul say to Timothy, " the same commit thou to faith- 
ful men who shall be able to teach others also ?" And is not this 
commission of the ministerial office from one to anoth-er, froiii 
the time of the Saviour to the present — is not this a succession in 
the ministry — an Apostolic succession! And does not this suc- 
cession constitute one of the strongest arguments — a standing 
miracle, I had almost said — for the facts of Gospel History ? And, 
so far, is it not a fulfilment of the Savior's promise, given to 



46 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

the Apostles, " Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of tiie- 
world?" 

But more than this ; is this doctrine of succession peculiar to 
(he Episcopal Church? Surely not, for it is maintained by all 
sound divines of every persuasion. What said the Westminster 
Assembly of Presbyterians? " The receiving of our ordination 
from Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Churches, and all 
along through the apostate Church of Eome, is so far from nulli- 
fying our Ministr^^or disparaging of it, that it is a great strength- 
ening of it, when it shall appear to all the world that our Minis- 
try is derived from Christ and his Apostles, by succession of a 
Ministry' continued in the Church for sixteen hundred years, and 
that we have a lineal succession from the Apostles,^"^ What said 
the late distinguished Dr. Lathrop, a Congregational or Presby- 
terian Minister of New England? Not long before his death he 
published two sermons entitled " Christ's warning to the Churches 
to beware of false prophets, &:c." The object of the sermons was 
to warn the Churches against encroachments of self-constituted 
teachers, and he proves that the only way in which they can be 
preserved from them, is by the doctrine of the necessity of an 
external commission, derived by regular uninterrupted succession. 
This is his language. "Many centuries, it will be said, have 
elapsed since Christ commissioned his Apostles, and since they 
ordained their successors ; and how can we know that the success- 
ion has continued without interruption?" In answer to this ob- 
jection the author says, " We have the express promise of Christ 
that he will support his Church and be with his Ministers * always, 
even to the end of the world.' When we compare this promise 
with the institution of the ministry and the mode of introduction 
w^hich immediately followed, we think it can import no less than- 
that a regular ministry should never cease in the Church, nor 
any necessity occur for departing from the instituted manner of 
introduction. We have the institution, the promise and the Apos^ 
tolic practice, and what more do we need ? The promise so em- 
phatically expressed, and so clearly interpreted, by subsequent 



PEFENDED* 47 

usag-e^ must, we think, be understood as we have stated it. It 
is, then, by no means necessary that by historical deduction we 
should prove an uninterrupted succession ; we have a righj* to 
presume it until evidence appears to the contrary. If any say 
that the succession has failed, the burden of ^pr oof must lie wholly 
on them. Let them from incontestible history show us the time, 
place and manner in which it terminated ; who were the last 
Ministers in the line from the Apostles ; who in the new line ; 
who the Layman that ordained them ; and where was the scene 
of transaction. Until we have this information we rely on the 
promise of Christ, in the sense in which we understand it." 
Such was the remarkable confession of this great man, whose 
intellectual vision enabled him to foresee the disastrous effects 
which were likely to arise, from the strange doctrine, that every 
individual, who thinks or feels that he ought to preach, has a right 
to do so. No wonder, when this inward feeling or impulse is 
made the otiZ?/ test of qualification, that the Church of Christ should 
be rent by every kind of heresy and schism. Thus I might go 
On and shov/, by concession of the soundest divines of almost ev- 
ery persuasion, that the doctrine of the Apostolical succession is 
by no means peculiar to the Episcopal Church. 

But do you not believe in some kind of succession j^ourself ? 
Why, then, the effort which Dr. Bangs has made, (and whose ex* 
ample, I understand, you have followed,) to prove that Bishops 
and Presbyters are the same order? Did you not think that if 
you could prove this, then you would convince your hearers, that 
Mr. Wesley, who was a Presbyter, had a right to ordain Dr. Coke — 
a right which belonged to him in virtue of his office, which he 
had received from others, and they from others, and so on through 
the corrupt Church of Rome up to the very time of the Apostles 
themselves ? If this was not your object — if, in your opinion, any 
individual who chooses may administer the sacraments and preach 
the Gospel — then it can make no difference whether Mr. Wesley 
was a Bishop, a Presbyter, a Deacon or a Layman ; and no eftbrt 
was necesary, on your part, to establish his right to ordain by vir- 
tue of his office. But more than this, I find that, in an ancient 



48 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

copy of your minutes, (1789,) the question is asked, '* Who are 
the persons that exercise the Episcopal office in the Methodist 
Church in Europe and America?" And then the answer given, 
is this, "John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by 
regular order and succession.''^ (Who did John Wesley succeed 
in the Episcopal office ?) Really, my good friend, I hope that af- 
ter this, you will be more cautious as to the manner in which you 
attempt to ridicule the Apostolic succession. 

The subject is one of great importance and solemnity, and whenl 
understood and j^ractised, is the only safeguard of the Church^ 
ao-ain^t the assaults of self-constituted Teachers. The L<aity1 
are especially concerned in maintaining it, for it alone can relieve'^ 
their minds from doubt as to the question, whether they really ^j 
have the sacraments or not. 

But again, in your letter, speaking directly of me, you say, that^ 
"efforts have been made again and again to prejudice this com- 
munity against Methodism" — " efforts which you could but look.^ 
upon as Jesuitical, wanton, unauthorized and inconsistent with! 
the charities of the Gospel, and w^ithout a parallel in your expe^i 
rience." These are heavy accusations, and should not be made 
without the most substantial reasons, and therefore, in the pres- 
ent stage of our discussion I shall not attempt any direct reply. 
You have lived in this community little more than a year, and in 
another year, it is probable, that you will be gone ; and if in this 
short time you have discovered such traits in my character, I can 
only hope that a longer acquaintance will tend to remove them ; 
and I am content that those who have had this longer, acquain- 
tance with me, shall be permitted to judge of the justice of your 
charges. 

But if such efforts have been made, as you pretend, to preju- 
dice the community against Methodism, then they have been 
made within the last year ; and when you remember how long it 
is that your people have been almost as sheep without a shepherd, 
you will at least give me the credit of waiting in my efforts, until 
they were provided both with a Church, and a Pastor whose abil- 
ities are said to be superior to those of any other individual in 



DEFfiNDEU* 49 

this section of the countr}^ There is one thing, however, of which 
you must allow me to remind j^ou ; not that I would accuse you 
of it, but that I would stir up your pure mind by way of remem- 
brance, and that is, that it is possible to slandet an individual^ 
not only by charging him with crimes which he never committed, 
but by heaping upon his person those injurious nalties and scan- 
dalous epithets which he does not deserve. As in the case of 
Corah and his company when they accused Moses of being am- 
bitious, unjust and tyrannical; or in the case of th^ Pharisees 
when they called our Lord a blasphemer, a sorcerer ^ a gluttonous 
man and a wine bibber ; or in the case of those Je\vs who charo^ed 
the Apostles that they were pestilent^ turbulent, factious and sedi-' 
tious fellows* All these are instances of manifest calumny, and 
most humiliating is the reflection that many individuals mistake 
the use of such latiguage for argument. And this kind of slan-f 
der may be more injurious than any other^ inasmuch as it may 
fix upon oUr neighbor a more heavy and irreparable Wrong; for . 
these names include all that the imagination of ariy individual 
may choose to invest them with ^ and heingge'neral n.niindeji7iif.e iri 
their nature, specifying neither li7ne, place or circumstance, it is^ 
of course, impossible to disprove them. In future^ therefore, I 
pi'opose, that if either of us intend to bring such accusations as 
you have made above ^ we shall be very particular in making the 
sj)eciJicationSs 

You remark that thete are maily things m the Church which 
you admire; that j^ou have strong attachments to her^ &;c.- Of 
all this I have no doubt, and did you but know her better', you 
would admire her more — her doctrines and her services all im- 
prove upon acquaintance, and hence we find, that few are will- 
ing to leave her who have once been brought within her fold. 
But othets have expressed their admiration more warmly than 
yourself. You have -read the testimony of the late Dr. Adam 
Clark, one of f^the most brilliant lights in your spiritual horizon. 

**I consider the Church of England," said he, *'the purest na- 
tional Church in the wotld. I was brought up in its bosom ; I 
was intended for its ministry; I have been a Methodist for half a 

4 



50; THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

centuns I have been a preacher for forty- three years, and I asi 
greatly deceived, indeed, if I be not without any abatement a 
thorough member of the Church of England. Its doctrines and 
sacraments which constitutes the essence of a Chuarch, I hold con- 
scientiously as it holds theiTi. I reverence the Liturgy next to the 
Bible. I proclaim its doctrines and administer its sacraments,, 
not only in the same spirit in which it holds and administea;s them,. 
but also in the same words or form.. I also reverence its orders 
and highly esteem, its hierarchy" [sacred orders] " and have not a 
particle of a dissenter in me, though I love and esteem- all good 
men and able ministers wherever I find, them. But I preach and 
have long preached without any kind of Episcopal orders. My 
family fell into decay, and. my education was left imperfect. / 
would greatly have jjref erred ike hands of the Bishop,, hut not hav- 
ing gone through the regular courses, I could not claim it.,'* 

Again^ when speaking of the Liturgy, Dr. Clark remarks, ** It. 
is almost universally esteemed by the devout and pious of every 
denomination,, and is the greatest effort of the reformation ne.xt 
to the translation of the Scriptures into the English language; a- 
work v/hich all who. are acquainted with it, deem superior toev". 
ery thing of the kind produced either by ancient or modern times, 
and several of the prayers and services of which were in use from 
the first ages of Christianity ;. and m.a.ny of the best of them be- 
fore the name of Pope or popery was known in the earth. Af^ 
a form of devotion it has no equal in any part of the universal 
Church of God,„ It is founded on those doctrines which contain- 
^he sum and essence of Christianity and speaks the language of 
the- sublimest piety,, and of the most refined devotional feeling,. 
JText to, the Bible, it is the book of my understanding and my 
heart," 
• Then we have the testimony of Mr.. Watson, another distin- 
guished Diviiie of the Methodist Communion. " Such a Litur-- 
gjy* said he, ^' makes the service of Goi^s house appear more- 
like our tru^ business on the Lord's day,, and. besides the aid 
which it affords to the most devout and spiritual,, a great body of 
©YsingeUcal truth is, by constant use, laid up in the minds ©f chii-- 



DEFENDED*. 51 

ixen and ignorant pecvple, who when at length they begin to pray 
under a religious eoncern are already furnished with suitable^ 
sanctifying, solemn and impressive petitions. Persons Well ac- 
quainted wath the Liturgy are certainly in a state of important 
preparation for the labors of a preacher; and their piety often 
takes a richer and more sober character from that circumstance.'*' 
How does this extract from Mr.. Watson rebuke the spirit of those 
who represent the services of the Church as cold and formal,, and 
destructive to the cultivation of vital religion.. 

But what said the great Robert Holl, the distinguished Baptist 
divine? Speaking of the Liturgy, he said, *'I beieve that the 
evangelical purity of its sentiments, the chastened fervor of its 
devotion and the majestic simplicity of its language have com- 
bined to place it in the very first rank of uninspired compositions.''' 
How strange, with such testimonies in its favor^ that so many 
"w^ho profess and call themselves christians^" should refuse to. 
unite in the devotions of the Liturgy and should presume to im- 
agine that they are too good, as it were, to. lift up their voices m 
its solemn petitions !. 

What said the w^ell known Thomas Scott, the Commentator ?. 
**"! am a Minister of the Church of England, and I hope to continue 
so, as I prefer her Liturgy, her discipline and her doctrine to that 
©f any other Society of Christians in the Universe J' You observe 
here, that it was not because- the Church of England was con- 
nected with the state, that he preferred it, but because it possess- 
es those im4)ortant things w^hich Dr.. Clark says ^* constitute the 
essence of a Church." 

What said' Dr.. Doddridge of the Liturgy ? '■^"The language is 
so plain as to be level to the capacities of the meanest,, and yet 
the sense is so* noble a.>s to raise the conceptions of the greatest."* 
What said Alexander Knox ? '* I cannot doubt that in rhe full- 
ness of time the Prayer Book will be accounted the richest treas- 
ure,, next to the canonical Scriptures, in the Christian Church.'* 
What said the divines of the Synod of Dort — the celebrated coun- 
cil o{ Dutch Reformed Clergymen, assembled in 1619 ? *' We havo 
a great honor, for the good order and discipline of the Church Otf 



62 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

England, and heartily wish we could establish ourselves upon thi$ 
model,' ^ 

All these testimonies in favor of the Church you will find col* 
lected in "Dorr's Manual," and in " Odenheimer's Offering to 
Churchmen;" and surely we have reason not only to regard thero 
in some instances, as important concessions, but as reluctant ack- 
nowledgments of the superior advantages of the Episcopal Church ; 
for in all that '^constitutes the essence of a Church," the Episco- 
pal Church in this country is the same with the Church of Eng- 
land, and only differs from her in that which has nothing to da 
with the '* essence of a church," and which is really an injury to 
the latter. O, how it grieves one's heart, to hear young convert* 
who have but just entered upon the duty of prayer, uttering lan- 
guage of ridicule and contempt for the hallowed supplications of 
the Liturgy, and presuming to question the piety of those chris- 
tians, who love to breathe the fervent spirit of its devotions ! How 
pitiful do the books and tracts of Dr. Bangs appear, when placed 
in contrast with the noble sentiments of Clark, and Hall, and 
Doddridge ! 

Sincerely hoping that the remarks which I have now made may 
find a favorable reception, and be considered calmly, and withr 
out prejudice, 

I subscribe myself. 

Very Respectfully, &:c. &c. 

James A. Bolles* 



DEFENDED. 53 

October 17, 1842. 
To the Rev. Allen Steele : — 

Dear Sir: — As it is now about three weeks since my second 
communication was sent to you, I hope you will not think me too 
impatient, if I express my anxiety for a reply, provided you in- 
tend to send me one. 

Of course I would not think of urging you to any thing like 
haste, but having already prepared and delivered a series of Lec- 
tures, I suppose that you can, without much trouble, so arrange 
the arguments as to enable me to proceed in their consideration. 

Will you be so kind as to inform me by the bearer whether 
nny reply is to be expected by me, and when it will probably be 
sent. 

Very Respectfully, &x. 

James A. Bolles. 



Batavia, October 17, 1842. 
Rev. J. A. Bolles: — 

Dear Sir: — Your communication to which you refer, was re- 
ceived just as I was leaving for Yates count}^ and since my re- 
turn, having to remove my family to another part of the village, 
I have not had a moments leisure to answ^er it. During the pre- 
sent week I think I shall be able to reply to such portions of it as 
are relevant. 

As to the arrangement of arguments so as to enable you to pro- 
ceed, you must explain what you mean. I am not aware of what 
you refer to. 

Yours, Respectfully, 

Allen Steeai. 



6i THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

Batavia, October 18, 1842. 
Rev. Mr. Bolles: — 

Dear Sir: — My apology for this delay in replying to yours of 
Sept. 19th, I trust was satisfactory. I have improved the first 
leisure hour in answering it, though I know of no special object 
to be gained by any haste in this matter — yet as from some cause 
you seem to be impatient, I hmve sought to remove that impa- 
tience at my earliest convenience, 

A large portion of your lengthy epistle refers to subjects which 
I cannot consent to .discuss in this random, and, as I consider, 
useless way, I suppose you are a conscientious Episcopalian. 
This I do not doubt, nor am I so vain as to entertain th'e thought 
that any thing that I could say would induce you to change your 
views of what I call high churchism. On the other hand, though 
I readily admit your ability to present the argument on your side 
in its strongest form, yet, as I examined that ground while pur- 
suing my Theological studies with a member of your Church, I 
cannot think that any effort of this kind would result in my con- 
version to the exclusive and high-toned claim now advanced by 
your leading periodicals. Hence I know^ of no good that w^ould 
result from a private discussion of the peculiarities of our or your 
church. So far as ivrong exists between you and myself, it is 
proper that explanations should be made w4ien called for, and if 
possible, the wrong righted. And this may be perhaps satisfac- 
torily done by private correspondence, and thus far I am willing, 
in the character of a private correspondent, to travel with you, 
but not beyond it, without first settling a number of preliminary 
questions. Judging from your letter, I should think that in your 
estimation, even this effort at explanation was increasing, instead 
of narrowing, the cause of the offence, especially if the number 
of the items named, or the quantity of paper used, are to be taken 
into the account. And if a similar explanation of differences on 
Church government and order would lead to similar results, it 
should most certainly be avoided as a thing to be deprecated. 
You have certainly spared neither time nor material to give mc 
most wholesome advice on the importance of self-government^ and 



I 



3DEFENDED* 55 

if I still persist in recklessness, it will not be the sin of ignorance. 
I trust, however, I shall prove myseif a teachable son in the Gos- 
pel, even thoiigh I may be looked upon as ilJegitiinate. After 
such lessons upon brotherly love and ministerial kindness, and 
bible morality, from a regular successionist, you will not think it 
"Strange if I express my surprise that in the same document I find 
the author of these good instructions giving most abundant -evi- 
dence of being guilty of the same offence. But it is one of the 
frailties of hum.an nature to complain most of those traits in oth* 
'ers, which are most prominent in ourselves. Let us look at a 
few items of beautiful harmiOny between the Ministers teachings 
'and the Ministers practi'ce, as furnished by the same letter^ and 
■the more so, because example is said to be better than precept. 

You complain of my applying to you *'hard names and epi- 
thets,'' and speak most affectiugly of your sorrowful emotions that 
I should so far forget myself as to be guilty of so great an offence. 
Now without permitting my imagination to conjuro up mere spec- 
tres, so horrifying to your feelingSv, I shall confine myself to the 
tecord, and present a few of the beautiful sptscimions your letter 
contains ^' of Christian kindness and truth." In great kindness, 
in the midst of your essay on brotherly love, I am most affection- 
ately charged with possessing neither love for the truth, nor the 
spirit of the Gospel — of calling you Beelzebub, and persecuting 
one who lives Godly in Christ Jesus — of having caused you to bo 
charged with falling into the horrible pit of Eomanism and Infi^ 
delity— undeserving of public sympathy and support-— that I have 
produced heart-burnings, bickerings, evil speaking, false reports, 
etc. — that I have violated the scriptural rule of brotherly inter- 
course—been reckless of the comjnon obligations of miorality, 
more so than men of the world— that I have been guilty of de- 
ceit — -of exagerating and torturing the it\iX\\-^—oi slander ^nAfalse^ 
hood. Such are a few of the mild and very soft epithets that 
spice your essay on christian kindness. And Doctors in Divini^ 
ty and Leaders in the Church come in for an equal share of your 
br-otherly a fleet ion 

With such discrepancies between precept and example, pef* 



56 . THE EPISCOPAL CHUSCH 

mit me, while I express my regret that I should have teen the 
occasion of your great sorrow for having, in a moment of excite- 
ment, as you allege, so far forgotten myself as to uge hard epi- 
thets to recommend to you that very wholsome adage, *' Pysician, 
heal thyself," And while your benevolent heart weeps over the 
faults of others, forget not to exercise that godly sorrow for your- 
^elf which worketh repentance not to ho repented of. 

My saymgs might have been hard^ but nothing is harder to 
errorists than truth, and if better men have had these same char- 
ges urged against their principles, it is only evidence that the ex» 
elusive nature of these principles, in themselves disconnected 
from all extraneous circumstances, are a provocation of no ordi^* 
nary magnitude, for better men than myself have urged them. 
Hard epithets ! What, High Churchmen talk of hard epithet3 
applied to then; hy the Methodists I And of whom did they learn 
these epithets? What harder ones were ever applied to your 
Church by Mother Eome than you have applied tons, from Wes* 
ley down to the present day. The early history of Methodism 
would give you beautiful specimens of epithets applied copiously 
by the sanction of your Ministers, in the shape of brick-bats and 
eggs, when the arguments to prove that we were not orthodox 
** were Apostolic blows and knocks," True, that in Tract No, 4 
these hard epithets have softened down into an intimation that 
we are an ignorant^ fanatical set of enthusiasts, with a few aspir- 
ing leaders who, waiting until Wesley was out of the way, went 
to work and organized something which they called a Church; 
bnt that we are not a Church — have no ministry, no sacraments, 
no divine warrant — but are living in a st^te of sin against God, 
and advises the christian, the man of the world, the Methodist 
himself, q.s they would avoid hell and secure heaven to keep clear 
of Methodism. (How kind, how affectionate.) And in Tract No, 
5, it is softened down to the charge of having ^^ng authorized 
ministry, no sacrament, no covenant, no church, and being out of 
the covenant we are out of the promise, out of God's mercy and 
favor, and have no pledge, no assurance of salvation, and in the 
conclusion are most graciously consigned oyer tq thgse qx\ whoni 



DEFENDED. S? 

the wrath of God now abideth. What splended specimens of the 
spirit recommended by Paul in the 13th chap, of I. Cor. And if 
you wish any farther specimens almost any number of your 
Churchman will supply you. What else than policy has produced 
even this change in the kind of weapons used. Surely we have 
had substantial proofs of your kindness. And here, perhaps, I 
may as well notice what you say of the substantial proofs your 
people have given of friendship. I conclude you refer to the con- 
tributions of the members of your Church for the erection of St. 
John's Church. Suppose you make out the bill as credit and 
enter per contra the amount St. James Church has received from 
Methodists for the last twelve years, and on which side, do you 
think, the balance would be struck? A little arithmatic some^ 
times is beneficial in settliag difficulties, and it may be benefi- 
cial here in giving stability to your substantial proofs. But should 
it be found in your favor, I do not suppose you will contend that 
so small an amount purchased the right of sending us silently to 
perdition ; certainly in receiving your contributions we understood 
no such contract, and if it is urged, shall demur, and chose to re- 
fund the balance. 

You complain that I have violated the scriptural rule, *'If thy 
brother trespass," etc., and that if I feel injured by your circula-* 
ting the tracts or in any other matter, that it was my duty to have 
introduced the subject to you, etc. Let us see how the Minister 
has practiced on this principle of Bible equity. Surely one be-* 
longing to the true Church should not complain of a schismatic, 
for a departure which he practices himself. But to the proof. 
You labor to make out that the attack was all on our part, and 
that you circulated the tracts and resorted to other means merely 
in self-defence. If this was true, why did you not obey the scrip- 
tural rule " If thy brother," ect., and yet, though I have been with 
you certainly as frequent as you have with me, '' 3^ou never deign- 
ed to introduce the matter to me." Thou that teachest the law, 
dost thou transgress the law? Now if what you attempt to prove 
is true, that I was first in the offence, then are you guilty, by your 
Qvvn exposition of scripture, of violating' the scriptural rule of 



'SS THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

brotherly conduct, and if I am not first in the offence then yotl 
concede your main ground of complaint. As you are fond of di* 
lemmas here is one on either horn of which you may take your 
•choice to hang. 

You complain of my speaking evil of an absent brother with* 
out sufficient or, indeed, any cause. And what treatment have 
absent brethren received from this teacher of brotherly kindness ? 
What kind of language, in your attem.pt to make out a cause of 
my evil speaking, have you used in the same dtjcument, in refer- 
ence to absent brethren'? Why^ that Drs. Peck and Bangs, men 
whose moral chracters are as pure and whose intellectual strength 
is equal to Bishop De Lancy's, the testimony of the former is un» 
worthy of confidence^ and the latter is guilty oi falsehood ! Where 
in the report of the "Leader's Meeting," or any of my sayings 
of absent brethren, will you find so wanton an attack upon chris- 
tian character? But I am sick of such stuff, and will pursue this- 
point no further, especially as these specimens will show you the 
importance of being a little cautious. And although you may 
think it assuming for a schismatic, a miere pretender, to council 
one in *' regular orders," yet I would seriously recomm.end a self 
application of the wholsome advice you have so freely given to 
your neighbor. 

In regard to your explanations, I readily grant you have sho^vn 
both tack and talent^ and furnished evidence that 3'ou are not an 
undisciplined disputant — that 3^ou can manage a had cause to the 
best advantage. By your dwelling on matters irrelevant, you 
evidently labor to divert attention from the point in issue, and 
show more of the character of a special pleader than in my miud 
is consistant with private correspondence of Ministers* Surely 
thei'€ is no need of re-v^iewing the history of the whole Church to 
show which of us is guilty in the m.atter betVv'een us. What has 
the publication of articles in the Christian Advocate and Journal 
in 1836, to do with the matter now in controversy ? Do your peo* 
pie take that paper ? if not, they could not be injured by them, 
and if they do, if they were so efiectually reviewed in the Church* 
man, (your paper,) and that by a Methodist Minister, and if tb« 



DEFENDED, fi9 

flirticles were so grossly abusive and destitute of argument as you 
assert, surely the antidote was more than sufficient, without th© 
aid of Tracts No. 4 & 5, in 1842. These articles you would have 
us think, were very powerful things, and yet, in another part of 
your letter you speak of them, in book form, as worthless, and 
that if they had not the name of their author they would have no 
influence ; but in the Advocate they were published without his 
name, — put this and that together. 

1836 you Rx as the date of the Methodist attack upon your 
Church. Were I disposed to go into an investigation of this point, 
I might show you some beautiful specimens of Christian kindness 
and truth in your periodicals, in reference to our Church, bearing 
a much earlier date, and which have all the characteristics *'o/' 
parly slang^''^ though your Church never takes a part in *' party 
controversy," for she is on the rock (I thought it was Christ's 
Church and not the Protestant Episcopal Church) and fears not 
her security. I wonder what you call your Church — what cori" 
stifutes if^ and by what kind of logic you would justify ''party 
slang and party controversy" on the part of her ministry in defend* 
ing her, when she would not be justifiable in it herself. These 
are some of the mysteries v/hich mere pretenders do not under* 
stand. 

What has our matter to do with Dr. Bangs' works ? If you feel 
yourself competent to join issue with him in reference to his er* 
roneous statements, I presume he will not decline the engage* 
ment, and perhaps you might find that he is as well acquainted 
with the history and canons of your Church as some of your Min- 
isters, At all events, I think you will find it easier to call his 
statements hard than to 'prove them false. You charge me, in- 
deed, of circulating a copy of his w^ork, and so far it ma}" be rel- 
evant to the case in hand, and this is the only ground of complaint 
tliat you have given as the cause of your action against us, that 
is relevant. Let us examine this point carefully, for if you fail 
here, you must exhonerate me from the charge of commencing 
the war, and admit that we have acted on the defensive You 
dxarge me with commencing this difficulty by circulating amonj 



60 THB EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

your people books such as never before had appeared in this Til- 
lage, containing the grossest mistakes in relation to the doctrine 
of your Church. Had you obeyed that rule of scripture you so 
much admire, and come to me, you might have learned your mis- 
take. I never circulated such books in this or any other village. 
I never circulated copies, or a copy, of Dr. Bangs' work on an 
"Original Church of Christ,'' to any members or member of your 
Church. It is true, a member of my congregation, not of yovt 
Church, at his own special request and upon the profession of his 
being an honest inquirer in reference to our organization, did ob- 
tain for his own use, a loan of the only copy of that work I ever 
owned. Was this a crime ? And yet this is all of the offence. 
And now let us see with what grace you talk of the foment 
produced among our members by your circulating Tract No. 4. 
On your discovering in the house of a member of my congrega- 
Hon the book complained of, was there no excitement manifested- 
Did you not put a copy of Tract No. 4. into his hands, so, if pos- 
sible, to counteract the influence of Dr. Bangs' arguments, or was 
you first in furnishing him with such instruction ? In either case 
who was doing the work of a peaceable Pastor? But there is 
more in this fact in which you hinge the whole of your efforts 
against us. With the circumstances of the case you were made 
acquainted, and the gentleman told you himself, how he obtain- 
ed the book on his own special request, and assured you that I 
had acted only the part of a christian friend in lending it to him> 
for which he was grateful. And yet, with a knowledge of these 
facts, you and your people, silent as you say they have been, have 
published it from one end of the village to the other, that I com- 
menced this war by circulating among your people books of the 
most abusive character. Never was there a greater slander or a 
more positive falsehood uttered, and by what rule of brotherly 
kindness have you given currency to this known falsehood? You 
possessed a knoAvledge of the facts at the time you gave it cur- 
rency, and can christian charity say that you did not intend to 
slander me ? You designed, at least, to shelter yourself at the ex- 
pense of — (not to use hard epithets) a brothers character, and 



DEFENDED. 61 

yet, in all your intercourse with me **you never deigned to ex- 
plain it to me.'' As you are fond of references, permit me here 
to refer you to the ninth item in the Decalogue, as containing 
wholsome advice. 

I will not stop to notice the hundred-and-one stories that you 
people have put into the mouth of Madam Rumor, " That the sain- 
ted wisdom of the Methodist Episcopal Church is employed in 
furnishing me with sermons to preach down St. James' Churchy 
and that this was the object in sending me here, etc. etc. Now, 
certainly, this can exist only in fancy, for the members of your 
Church have possessed themselves in peace — they never stoop to 
party slang — it is these ranting Methodist that do all the harm: 
on both sides, and are accountable, for all the evils that grow out 
of party excitement. So taught the Pharisees in the days of the 
Apostles, and thus has exclusiveness and intolerance ever taught. 

There are som.e other item_s in connection with the origin of 
this attack, which would carry it back earlier than the date of the 
book's leaving my library, and which would show that other rea- 
sons might account for its origin than those given in your letter, 
"The haste of a few to build up a church," would show that the 
benevolence of the Rev. J. A. Bolles manifested in his liberal do* 
nation for the erection of St. .John's Church, was indebted to a 
very peculiar principle. I trust it will not be necessar}^ to men- 
tion them, nor should I have adverted to them but for the singu- 
lar course you have taken in your letter. I will only say on this 
point, that those who live in glass houses should be cautious how 
they throw stones, for with what measure you meet it shall be 
meeted to you again. Let not him that girdeth on the harness 
boast himself as he that taketh it off. 

You mistake my meaning altogether in reference to the doc* 
trine of the Tracts. Nothing is intimated by me of what forms 
a large portion of your letter. You affirm that Tract No. 5 con* 
tains nothing' more than the faith of the Methodist E. Church- 
This is strange, indeed I Why, then, did the author withhold, 
his name, from fear of the storm that the Methodists would rais« 
ftgainst him, if his name was out, as you intimate ? Do the Meth- 



62 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

dists SO mucli dread to have their doctrines published ? Your 
apology for this nameless author is worthy of a Knightship, and 
reminds me of the French Revolution, when the watchword of a 
certain class was^ '' Strike, but conceal the hand"-— a method of 
warfare very convenient to the assailant under certain circurn- 
etances,. and when the attack is of a certain character,, which I 
will not name^ lest you should charge me with using hard epi- 
thets. Does the Methodist Episcopal Church believe that Bish- 
ops are, by divine light, an order superior to, distinct From, and 
have powers, authority, and rites incompatible with Presbyters^ 
simply as Presbyters — that the Bishops of this order are the sole 
successors of the Apostles as ordainers of other Ministers and 
governors, both of Pastors and people — that this succession is a. 
personal succession, viz., that it is to be traced through an histor- 
ical series of persons validly ordained as Bishops, transmitting 
in an unbroken line this Episcopal order and power to the latest 
generation— that no Ministry is valid e^icept it have this Episco- 
pal ordinr^tion, and that air ordinances and sacraments are vain 
except thQj be administered by such Episcopally ordained Min- 
istry ? No, we deny every one of these positions, and yet this is 
the doctrine of Tract No.. 5= — the doctrine of Bishop Taylor, of the- 
Oxford Tract men — but not the doctrine of many emir^ent men,, 
both in the Church of England, and her defective'- refresentative 
in the United States — not the doctrine of our Church, a tyro might 
know. I wished to know if it was your doctrine, the doctrine of 
JQ\M ChuToh generally. You affirm that Tract No. 4 contains,, 
not the doctrine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but merely 
the doctrine of Mr. Wesley.. This is begging the question. Tha* 
Tract assumes that Methodism is not a Church — that k is with^ 
out Sacraments, without a Ministry, its members living in sin 
against God — that the fellowship you have for us should be the 
eame you have for Abolition and Moral Reform Societies, and 
proposes to prove it by Mr. Wesley as the witness.. ¥/hether the:, 
author made ©ut the case or not is immaterial — the question is, 
what is the doctrine, the claim, set up by the author of the Tract, 
This I have just stated^ Is this the doctrine of your Church, 



BEFEJiDED. 63 

was what I asked — is this your opinion of us — is this the fellow^ 
ship you have for us, the same you have for those honorable as- 
sociations you give us ? Certainly there is nothing abstruse here,, 
nothing difficult to apprehend— but perhaps a direct answer would 
not be convenient. It was against sueh. claims that I entered my 
protest as being unchristian, exdunve, and intolerant^ And if 
these doctrines aa'e admitted as being the doctrines of the Pro- 
testant Episcopal Church— this fellowship, the fellowship for us,, 
my protest viands, against it,, and we shall know how to under- 
stand and appreciate this talk of friendship to us. Such doctrinea 
I would oppose in all proper ways,, as I would oppose Popery,. Iri' 
regard to what you say of the- members of our Church, and the 
motives of their action in the "Leaders' Meeting,'^ I would re- 
commend you to. obey that scriptural rule, and converse with 
them. You will probably learn that they had more light on tho 
subject than you. imagine... Equally irrelevant are many other- 
things that you have introduced.^ The whole matter may easily 
be settled, by laying aside evasions and specictl pleadings^,. and 
answering a Sew plain questions.. Let me propose a few v/hich 
you will answer at A^our leisure r 

L. Will you affirm that Bishop De Lancey has had no agency in, 
introducing Tract No., 4, into Western New York. 

2. That you never circulated said Tract, until you knew of my 
circulating Bangs' work, and that to counteract its influence: 
was the cause of your first circulating it.. 

3. That you never sought to prevent persons from uniting with 
our Church, by attempting to show them tliat our ordination 
v^as not valid. 

4. That the reading of Dr. Chapman's Serm^ons to the public wa^^ 
not as much a defence of the government and order of your 
Church^-— not as m.uch an attack upon other Churches, as a. 
similar course of Lectures which you yourself might prepare 
and deliver Vv^ould be.. 

These 'questions answered in the affirmative by you will re- 
Move the necessity of our defence, so far as that necessity waa^ 
founded, on your supposed attack on our Church and polity. And 



64 THE EPISCOJ»AL CHURCH 

SO far as the argument referred to that, it shall be publicly re^ 
tracted. But I do not suppose that you will deny me the privi- 
lege of presenting to my people my views of Church government, 
and the evidence of our being a true Church. This I had intend- 
ed to do in my course of sermons on Christian Theology, in its 
proper place, and without supposing that by doing it I Avas giv- 
ing you cause of complaint. I do not complain of your having 
read Dr. Chapman's sermons — this you had a right to do. But 
I do complain of injustice, in your publishing to this community 
that I commenced an offensive war upon your Church, and that 
•without provocation, This you know to he false ^ and you know 
that repeated public efforts were made by you to prejudice this 
community against Methodism before any public notice was ta- 
ken of them. And then, in my discourses on the subject I have 
aimed, not at men, but at doctrine. I have sought to explode 
what I conceived to be erroneous in those tracts, not in the wake 
of Dr. Bangs, as yoa would insinuate, nor by declaring that I 
would sunder every chain in your succession. I made no such 
pretensions. I am not so vain as to tell my audience beforehand 
what I shall do. I sometimes tell what I shall attempt to do, and 
sometimes enquire if I have done it. If your reporter has missed 
my statements in other matters as much as in these specimens you 
have given, I fear you will be farther from the truth than you 
imagine the ^'Leader^s Meeting" to be. In no one of my dis^ 
courses did I make any allusion to you, or to any thing that you 
had done ; all your ground of complaint, therefore, lies in the no- 
tice from the *' Leader^s Meeting," and if that is incorrect, I am' 
willing to correct it. But we have more evidence of its being 
correct than that to which you allude. You speak of my having' 
the field all to myself, etc. etc., and wish me to communicate my 
argument to you, etc. The first, certainly, is most profound ; a 
great privilege, indeed, that I have my own ptllpit to myself and 
a right to invite the people to come and hesr me. Have you not 
the same privilege? Have you not had the field to 3^ourself, and 
for these six months poured forth upon the public mind the pecu- 
liarities of your ChuLTch ? and who has complained of that ? Thi« 



DEFENDED^ 6§ 

you had a right to do* I hold myself accountable to you for my 
public administrations in my pulpit no farther than your name is 
concerned, and if this has been used improperly the remedy is at 
hand, and when I am convinced of the fact, shall be promptly ap* 
plied. It is sufficient to reply to your modest requst for my argu- 
ments, that the discourses were publicly announced, and all who 
were disposed could have heard for themselves. 

Hoping that if you write me again, you will be so definite as 
not to leave room for the play of my imagination to conjure up 
such dreadful .spectres — 

I remain, Yours, &c. 

Ali^i^ Steele* 



66 THE EPISCOPAL CHmCH^ 

Batavia, Oct. 27,. 1S4'2'., 
To tfee Rev. A. Steele : — 

Dear Sir — Your epistle of the 18th inst,, I will endeavor to re- 
view in as brief a space as possible,, and shall proceed in my next 
to the iinvestigatii3n of the claims of' Methodist Episcopacy, as in- 
timated at the close of m{y second letter. You say that " by dwel- 
liner on matters irrelevant^ you undbiibtediy labor to divert atten- 
. tion from, the point in i^u-e..'^ Let ua see. 

The first paint at issue > was,, that Bishop De Lancey had '* in-- 
troduced anonymous pamphlets,, attacking- the character and reg- 
ulations of' the Methodist E^ Church/^ and this charge you pub'- 
licly read from your pulpit. Now,, was it not relevant in me to 
show, that Bishop De Lancey had done no such thing — that your 
own Leaders had placed the Tract No. 4,, on Methodism^ in the^ 
Bookstore — that even allcwi^ig the statement of Dw, Peck in all' 
its length and breadth, it did not sustain y&u m the allegation,, 
and that one of th« very individuals who penned the accusation-^ 
Vv'as informed that subsequently to the appearance of the Tracts 
in this village, the Bishop had remarked (no^to. me only, but to- 
another individuaHvho gave the information)- tha^t he had neves 
seen or read the Tract at all ? And now, instead of attempting 
to answer these facts-— instead of attempting even to show thar 
you had any grounds whatever for the allegation, you charge ma- 
with irrelevancy, and then ask m.e to. " affirm that Bishop De Lan- 
cey has had no agency in introducing Tract No. 4 into AVestern- 
New-York." After having yourself afiirined public!}', that ho 
has had smqU agency, you now seek for informatian as to the fact. 
But another point at issue was, that I had cxho- comme need an 
attack upon ''the character and regulations of the Methodist E., 
C, by the circulation of the same pamphtet J*" Inr answer to this 
I replied in substance, that so far from commenci/ng such an attack, 
the whole difficulty was begun and carried on by yf>:^rselves; 
and this I proved, not by my own Vv^ord merely,, but by facts and 
dates about which there could be no mistake,, and in relation to, 
which it is impossible for any individual to blind our eyes. And 
how have y<iu answered me upor> this point ? Why, by acknowU 



DEFENDED, ' 67 

edging, virtually, all tliat I asserted; acknowledging the exis- 
tence in this village, of the Books and Tracts which I referred to, 
long before the publication even af the Tract complained of;, ac- 
knowledging that you did give to the very individual to whom I 
referred, the Book of Dr. Bangs ; acknowledging your ignorance 
at least, as to the time when that Book was given, by asking m-^ 
the question as to time^ and offering to take my answer and re- 
tract your assertion; and now, because some of my people have 
ventured to say, since the reading of the document of the " Lead- 
er's Meeting," that you had comx-menced the attack, you declare 
that there "never was a greater slander or more positive false- 
hood uttered," and you m.ore than intimate that I circulated this 
^'^ known falsehood," intentionallg ^t\A designedly to shield myself 
at your expense. Keally,, Sir, there is something in this part of 
your letter which astonishes me above measure. At the sam^e 
time you must allow me tO' say, that there is also something in 
these wholesale charges so entirely unsustained by the specifica- 
tion of facts,, and so utterly repugnant to your own virtual ac- 
knowledgements, that I cannot but regard them as ludicrous in 
the extreme — so ludicrous, indeed, that I could not take oifence 
at them if I would. 

True, you say that the individual to vrhom you gave the Book 
was a memher of your congregation, and not of the Episcopal 
Church. But what are the facts? He has been baptised in the 
Church — confirmed in the Church — his chiidren have been bap« 
tized by nie — he has ever regarded himself as a member of the 
Church, and does now, and since the reading of Banp;'s Book, 
has come to the communion.. Are we to- understand that everv 
indiv.idual who occasionally attends your services,, or vrho, to as- 
sist you, has purchased a slip, is thereby not only a bona iide Meth- 
odist,, but that he has TJftterly renounced ail'l connection with the 
Church? If so, the good people Oifthe various denominations in 
this village should beware, "Was this Methodism in the time of 
Wesley ? 

True, you say you " gave him the Book on his own special re* 
'q.uest," and that " in doing so you acted only the part of a chris* 



68 th'e episcopal church 

tain friend/^ Very well. So it was with myself; I gare him 
the tract at his own special request — not because I found your 
Book at his house, as you intimate, but because he brought it to 
me in my study, and wished to know whether I had any reply, 
I did not complain because you gave him the Book, nor did I im- 
peach your motives in so doing, nor should I ever have mentioned 
the fact had it not been for the compiaintswhich were made, and 
for the document of your "Leader's Meeting/^ But when that 
document was read, charging me with commencing an attack up- 
on you by the circulation of tracts, then, certainly, it wae^my di^tj 
to state the case precisely as it was. 

But another point at issue was, that *^the Tract was made up 
of garbled extracts and false statements/' To ascertain the truth 
of this assertion I compared the extracts with Mr, Wesley's works 
from which they were professedly copied, and ascertained that 
you were mistaken. I also offered, if you would point me to any 
extracts not to be found in Mr. Wesley's works, that I would mak@ 
it known to the public in almost any way that you might desire, 
and what was fairer still, that I would read to my congregatioa 
the entire Sermons from which those extracts were principally- 
taken, provided you would do the same to yours. All this it 
seemed to me, was relevant; indeed, the only way to get at the 
facts. And how have you answered me upon this point ? Not 
by bringing forward a single argument to sustain your original 
assertion — not by pointing out a single extract as garbled, but by 
suggesting that *^ my apology for the nameless author, deserves 
the honor of a Knightship," (Knighthood, I suppose you mean,) 
But another point at issue was this, " Nothing but a distinct de- 
nial of the doctrines of the Tracts No, 4 and 5 as being the doc- 
trines of the Episcopal Church, could deter you from this work of 
justice," Thus called upon to deny the doctrines of the Tracts, 
and threatened if I did not, Vv^hat was my reply? 

In the first place, in relation to Tract No, -5, I replied, that in- 
asmuch as it contained an argument to prove the three orders of 
the Christian Ministry as held by the Episcopal. Church, it could 
not be denied by me as to its doctiines--^and moreover I went on 



DEFENDED. 69 

to prove that the same are the doctrines of the Methodist Church, 
not as explained by yourself and Dr. Bangs, but as contained in 
your formularies of devotion. And how have you answered me 
upon this point ? Not by saying a word in relation to your Book 
of Discipline— not by bringing forward a single proof from that 
authorized exposition of 3^our faith, that I had misrepresented your 
doctrines, but by doing precisely what I said you were in the habit 
of doing, what Dr. Bangs does, and what I understand you did 
in your Lectures — denying in the very teeth of your standard, 
that the doctrines of the Tract are the doctrines of your Church. 
Although on ever}^ occasion of ordination you pray to God and 
acknov/ledge in your prayers, that He has '^ a'ppoinied these di- 
vers orders in ChrisVs Church,'^ orders so distinct and separate 
from each other in authority and rights, yet in controversy you 
declare your belief that they are not of divine appointment, and 
thus deny the ^'jus divinum^^ of your own most solemn prayers. 

Then in relation to Tract No. 4, I replied that it did not even 
profess to contain our doctrines, but " Methodism as held by Wes- 
ley,'' and consequently that I could neither affirm or deny, and 
for this simple reason, that the Church has never affirmed or de- 
nied to my knowledge, any thing that Mr. Wesley ever wrote. 
And how have you met me upon this point? Not by bringing 
forward a single word from the Tract to prove that it professes to 
contain our doctrines — not by attempting even any thing of the 
kind, but by asserting that my course of argument is a ^' begging 
of the question." What do you mean by a begging of the ques- 
tion ? When an individual assumes the very point to be proved, 
and then reasons upon it and asks questions about it as though it 
were proved, this is a begging of the question, " a petitio princi- 
pii", and this is exactly what you have done. You have assumed 
that the Tract professes, at least, to contain our doctrines; you 
have even gone farther than this and read in your pulpit some 
parts of the Tract as containing our doctrines, and then reasoned 
about them and argued against them, and you have called upon 
me to deny them, and all this without a word of proof connec- 
ting the Tract with the doctrines of the Episcopal Church. 



70 



THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 



But more than this ; after havincr declared in the most positive 
and peremptory manner that, ** no cry of persecution, of ingrat- 
itude, or threat of the withdra\ral of friendship or money, or all, 
at this late hour will deter you from this work of justice; noth- 
ing but a distinct denial upon my part of the doctrines of the 
Tracts Nos. 4 6z 5, as containing the doctrines of the Episcopal 
Church"^ — ^}'ou now change entirely the points at issue^ virtual- 
ly acknovrledging that you are satisfied on these, and you pro- 
pose certain questions — questions which have really been answer- 
ed — and you offer not only to desist^ but to retract all you have 
said as founded upon my '^ supposed attack ^^^ provided thut I will 
answer these questions in the afnnnative. Truly you have for- 
g^otten the old maxim, '* forfi's cadere, cedere nan pot est. ''^ 

You must excuse me from entering into any arithmetical cal- 
culations with you — the honor of looking upon subscriptions of 
money as the only sulstantial proofs of friendship, I am content you 
should enjoy alone ; for I have been taught to think and am hap- 
py in the belief that poverty and friendship are not inseperable, 
and that the poor man who has not a cent in his pocket, is often- 
times a more g^enuine friend than the most liberal '* millionaire," 
e-specially when that liberality is manifested on paper subscrip- 
tions. 

You must also excuse me from any attempt to defend myself 
from the charge of having violated the scripture rule, "if thy 
brother trespass," &:c., for I envy not the intellect of that man who 
is unable to see that the rule had no application to me until after 
the reading of vour ''Leaders" document, and that then I did 
act upon it as my first letter testifies; not, indeed, by going per- 
sonally to you, but bv doing that which amounts to the same 
thing, by addressing you personally, in the mildest language and 
the most respectful terms. 

Now I come to that w^hich constitutes, in my opinion, the most 
serious and important part of your letter, and I feel bound to tell 
you v/ith more than usual plainness, that I do not submit to the 
accusation of having used towards you any railing language or 
abusive epithets. In the most solemn manner do I utterly deny 



D'Er'ENDiEl). 71 

the charge, afi'd lappeal to all my letters and to the common sense 
'of the reader to sustain me in this denial. On this point, Sir, 
you have not confined yourself to the record. You have not quo- 
ted my language at all in its connection. You have made no 
distinction between th-e use of abusive epithets antl that faithful 
kind of address which every individual is privileged to make 
to the heart and conscience of his accuser; and w^hen, as a 
christian, I would shelter myself from the gathering storm of 
man's indignation, by those blessed assurances which oar Saviour 
has given to all who regard them.selves as sufferers iii his cause, 
then have you unjustly represented me as employing the lan- 
guage, not of the Saviour, but of personal invective. 

Tell me not, Sir, Vvdien speaking of yont mode and manner 
of reasoning against the Church, 1 asked the questions, is this 
the spirit of the Gospel ? does this comport loith a hearty tove of the 
truth? 

Tell me not, th-at I then accused you of "^'possessing neither 
love for the truth, nor the spirit of the Gospel," for if I had sup- 
posed that you were so entirely destitute of all moral feeling, I 
should never thus have addressed myself to your conscience, and 
therefore I now"^ put the questions to you again as founded upon 
the manner in which y($u have been pleased to interpret my lan- 
guage, and I ask you seriously to consider them, is this the spirit 
of the Gospel? does this comport with a hearty love Jar the truth?- 
tell me not, Avhen speaking of those false reports which Ru- 
■mor with her hundred tongues, has carried into the surround- 
ing country, and which I rem^irked, were in some degree attributa- 
'ble to that unfortunate step of yours in the reading of the Lead- 
er's document — tell me not that I then brought a personal accusa- 
tion against you of '' falsehood and slander," for at the saine time 
I acknowledged that all had originated in haste and inconsidera- 
iion^ and expressly to guard against any supposed impeachment 
either of your motives or the motives of those with whom yoii ac- 
ted, I acknowledged not only that you were good men and chris* 
tians, but that 1 did not doubt the excellency and sincerity of yoiir 
character* No, Sir, in the honor of leaving the points at issue, 



72 ^ THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

and attacking the personal character and integrity of your antag- 
onist — in this peculiar honor — you must stand emphatically alone. 
The palm I yield to you, and most cheerfully confess that in this 
particular you have gained the victory, and you may be sure that 
so far as I am concerned, you will be permitted to enjoy its un- 
disturbed possession. All that you have said and all that you can 
say against my moral and religious character, ho\yever gratify- 
ing it may be to the passions and prejudices of some, by the 
grace of God, I am able to bear; but I cannot and will not bear 
the reproach of having reproached again. And although I have 
spoken with some degree of energy and zeal, as I felt called upon 
to do by the the tenor of your first letter, still, lest it should be 
imagined by any one that I have intended to impeach the puritj 
of your motives, I will here declare again, and most sincerely^ 
that this has not been my intention, and that I look upon your 
character as so connected with the honor of our common Christi- 
anity, that I should regret to see its integrity assailed. 

But you must not shield yourself from the responsibility of 
your letters, by saying now that they are ''private,^^ for a corres- 
pondence that relates entirely to matters which you were pleased 
to publish from your pulpit mentio7iing vie hy navie and without my 
knowledge or consent^ cannot be 'private. Let us look at the facts. 
You have read a public document in relation to me, emanating 
from the Leaders of your Church, — you have founded upon that 
document a course of Lectures, and thus made me responsible 
for the opinions and sentiments which you were pleased to com- 
bat, — you have received from me a respectful letter, giving you 
a fair opportunity to explain before taking any public notice of 
your extraordinary course of action, — you have written to me as 
you supposed, a most triumphant reply, not confining yourself to 
the Leader's document, not entering into any explanation of that, 
excepting by way of questions and inuendoes, but going into other 
and graver charges, aud opening almost every intervening sub- 
ject between Methodism and the Oxford Tracts, — you have de- 
clared, with an air of defiance, that I could ^' make any protest to 
tfee put^lic that I see proper/.^ th^t you are not only ''\yillii)g to 



DEFENDED. 73 

abide the issue," but that " t/ow will not complain of being denied 
the common privilege of self-defence, as you acknowledge no 
such power in this land of christian liberty, and no such depri- 
ration of right," — you have now refused in your last letter, to 
discuss the subjects opened by yourself, and have thus placed ma 
in a situation by which I am compelled either to publish your 
letters or to subject myself to the charge of withholding your 
yindication; and now, after all this, can you pretend that our cor- 
respondemce is ^private, and that the publication of it would be a 
violation of the courtesies of gentlemen ? Eeally, Sir, I will not 
believe that you would thus fetter both my tongue and my pen — 
I will not believe that this is what you intend v/hen you speak of 
the '' private correspondence of Ministers ;" for you must perceive 
that there is no way or shape in which our correspondence can 
be regarded as private, and that I am absolutely compelled either 
to submit in silence to all your accusations, or else to make a fear- 
less and honest defence by the publication of our letters. 

Our readers will perceive that so far as I am concerned, it was 
not my intention to confine our correspondence to matters of a 
personal nature, but that I wished to enter upon a frank and manly 
discussion of those topics which are really of interest to the com- 
munity at large, It is for this reason that I have endeavored to 
be brief in this, and I propose in my next to examine the subject 
gf Methodist Episcopacy. 

Yours, (fee. 

James A. Bolles. 

P. S. There is one thing in your letter to which I feel reluc- 
tant to allude, but which, as illustrating your ideas of justice and 
propriety, I cannot entirely pass over. You make the following 
enquiries:— "Does the Methodist Episcopal Church believe, that 
Bishops are, by divine right, an order superior toy distinct from, 
and have powers, authority and rites incompatihlv with Presbyters, 
»ixuply as Presbyters? — That the Bishops of this order are the sola 
successors of the Apostles as ordainers of other Ministers a7id gov- 
ernors both of pastors and people? — That this succession is a per* 



74 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

sonal succession, viz, that it is to he traced through an historical 
series of persons validly ordained as Bishops, transmitting in an 
unhroken line this Episcopal order and power to the latest genera*' 
tion? — That no Ministry is valid except it have this Episcopal ordin* 
ation, and, that all ordinances and satraments are vain except they 
he administered hy such episcopally ordained Ministry^'' ? Now 
in answer to these questions, I would say., that if the Episcopal 
Church believes all this, then the Methodist Church professes to 
do the same, for she has received and adopted into her Book of 
Discipline the same forms of ordination. But the point to which 
I would call your attention is, that every part of the above, which 
is placed in italics, you have copied verbatim without any marks 
of quotation, (with the sino-le exception of the Avord "r^'/es" for 
*'rio^/i/5,") from an Eno-lish work recently published by a Mr, 
Powell, and the fjuestions which you have thus put to me are 
the questions which, -according to Mr. Powell, constitute the 
points of difference between the Oxford Divines and their oppo- 
nents. You may think that this is all just und fair, but 1 confess 
it does not seem so to me. 

But more than this. After putting these questions, you then 
reply — *'No, Vv'e deny every one of these positions, and yet this 
is the doctrine of Tract No. 5 — the doctrine of Bishop Taylor of 
the Oxford Tract nien,'^^ Now, without saying any thing of tlio 
fact, that Tract No. 5 is not one of the Oxford Tracts, as it was 
first published in this country, I would call your attention to the 
mistalre which you have made in relation to Bishop Taylor. Mr. 
Powell has quoted from one of the Sermons of Old Jeremy Taylor^ 
as sustaining the views of the Oxford Tracts, and as he only calls 
him plain Bishop Taylor, and says nothing about him as the au- 
thor of "Holy Living and Dying," you seem to have inferred that 
he is still alive, and is one "of the Oxford Tract men." Should 
not such a mistake be a lesson of caution ? 

J. A. B. 



THE CLAIMS OF METHODIST EPISCOPACY, 



Dear Sir : — No one can be more sensible than I am, of the fol- 
ly of a controversy between grave and reverend Ministers, arising 
out of the circnlation of so small an affair as Tract No, 4, entitled f 
•'Methodism as held by Wesl-ey." That the distribution of a 
few copies of said Tract, either with or without provocation, 
^should arouse the whole Methodist Church, not only in this place, 
but in others, and that in consequence of it the reputation and 
character of individuals should be assailed — all this it seems to 
me is marvellous indeed. 

But at the same time the <3ccasi0n is one w4iich may well be 
embraced, for the purpose of examining a subject which should 
not be allowed to slumber, and w^hich at all times is a fair and 
legitimate subject for impartial inquiry, I refer to the claims of 
*' Methodist Episcopacy," to which I propose to devote the .pres- 
ent letter." 

il^What is Episcopacy? Evidently, it is the having of a Bish- \ 
ap, (an Episcopos) as an order ^ cUstmctfrom and svperlor to^ PrcS' '\ 
hyters in the Church of God. This is the only definition which ' 
has ever been received in the Church, which alone distinguishes 
the Episcopal form of Church Government from the Presbyterian 
or from any other; and which, as I have already shown, the 
Methodist Episcopal' Church in her Book of Discipline professes 
to maintain ; and thus professing to have the Episcopacy, it is 
right and proper that her claims should be tested by the well 
known principles of Episcopalins themselves./ 

But that there may be no mistake as to tile real claims of this 
denomination, I shall here quote a few words from the "Anno- 
tations of Messrs. Coke and Asbury," in which they are endeav- 
oring to prove the divine right and institution of Diocesari Epis- 
copacy. They appeal to the case of Timothy as follows : 



76 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

*■' Timothy was appointed by St. Paul, Bishop of the Ephesians and Titus 
was appointed by the same Apostle Bishop of the Cretians, and tliey were 
Bishops in theproper Episcopal sense, and they were travelling Bishops. Tfte 
Episcopal office in allits parts was invested in them." " Titus, Bishop of Crete 
was required to ordaia Eiders, and to set in order the things thit were wanting 
in evarij city in the Isle of Crete." " Each of those Churches (Ephesus and 
Crete) belonged to a great Metropolitan City, to which many other cities, towns 
and villages, were considered adjoined "* " So the other Bishops (as soon a» 
possible) had each aa extensive Diocese, through which they travelled, and over 
which they superintended, — nor must we omit to observe that each dioces* 
had a College of Elders or Presbyters in which the Bishops presided." 

So they appeal to the Angels of the Seven Churches as *'pos» 
fiessing- the Episcopal office/' and declare that, " all the Episcopal 
Churches in the World are conscious of the dignity of the Epis- 
copal office," and thus go on to vindicate the order as distinct from 
that of Presbyters and Deaconsy (See p. 7.) 

Before the American Kevoluuon, the Methodists in this coun- 
ty never pretended to have an Episcopacy, or any other kind of 
Ministry authorized to administer the sacraments. Their preach- 
ers were all Laymen, and went no farther than simply to preach 
the Gospel, Avhich Mr. "Wesley declared was ^'the sole and only- 
principle of Methodism." The members regarded themselves as 
a religious Society connected with the Church of England, and 
so connected as to disclaim, the name of Dissenters ;/3.nd even 
now the Episcopacy of the Methodists in this country, is entireW 
repudiated by the Methodists in England ; so much so, that when 
the Canadian Methodists, a few years since, were admitted into 
union with the English Wesleyans, it was made an express condi^ 
tion, that they should lay down their assumed Episcopal ordina- 
tion as derived from the American Methodists.^ 

Hence the question arises, where did the Methodists in this 
country obtain the Episcopacy ? How did they get it ? Directly, 
by the miraculous appearance of the Saviour to their first Bishop, 
as he appeared to^St. Paul ? or indirectly, through the instrumen- 
tality of men? Not directly, but indirectly; through the instru- 
mentality of John Wesley, by whom, say they, it was conferred 
upon Thomas Coke, and by him upon Francis Asbury, and thus 
by ** regular order and succession," down to the present time. 

Now, under ordinary crrcum stances, I should think it sufficient 



DEFENDED. 77 

for me to show, that John Wesley never had the Episcopacy^ 
either directly or indirectly, and consequently that he could nerer 
hare conferred it upon Thomas Coke. But as I wish to intro^ 
duce to the notice of the reader, a number of curious and impor- 
tant documents connected with this subject, I shall go further^ 
back and endeavor to establish the following proposition, viz: — 
That we have no good and sufficient reason to believe that Mi. 
John Wesley ever intended to ordain Dr. Coke a Bishop. 

This is the proposition which I shall endeavor to establish- 
not that we have no reason or evidence at all, but that we have 
no good and sufficient reason; and this is a point about which I 
think it will appear that there is considerable doubt. 

I. We know from *'Myle's Chronological History of Metho- 
dism,'' (p p 75 & 76,) that in 1763 a Greek Bishop visited Lon- 
don, whose name was Erasmus, and when *']\1r. We^sley had 
made enquiry concerning the reality of his office, and was fully 
satisfied that he was a real Bishop, he then applied to him to or- 
dain Dr. Jones in order to assist him in administering the Lord's 
supper/' and the Bishop acceded to his request. 

Now, can it be, that a man who was so far from believing thai 
he had any authority even to make a Presbyter, that he applied 
for that purpose to a travelling Greek Bishop — that a man who 
considered the hands of a real Bishop so essential to a valid or- 
dination to one of the lower offices of the Ministry, that he wai 
willing to dispense with the performance of that office in a lan- 
guage known to the candidate — (for the same history informs us 
that the Bishop did not understand English nor Dr. Jones Greek) 
ean it be that such a man would afterwards presume, himself, to 
consecrate a Bishop and confer upon him the power of ordaining* 
Others.^ Really the supposition is incredible, and we must have 
no ordinary evidence to convince us of the fact. 

n. Again we know, that Wesley was an ordained Presbyter 
of the Church of England, and that as such, any attempt to ex- 
ercise the rights of the Episcopate would have been a direct vi- 
olation of his most solemn ordination vows^ for in those vows, he 
had declared his belief in the discipline of that Church, and had 



} 



78- THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

promised at the altar of his God, so to administer the duties of 
bis^ office ** as that Church had received the same," and in suh- 
ordination to his Bis^/wp and other chief Ministers, We know not 
how it would fae possible for any Presbyter of the Church at the 
1 present time,, more plainly and palpably to viofeite hi^ sacred ob- 
\Kgations, than to presume to exercise the right of ordination — 
>a right not only withheld in the ordination service,, but expressly 
acknowledged in the Discipline of the Church to belong to Bish- 
ops alone. And now can it be that such a man as Mr. Wesley — 
a man who professed to be more alive to his sacred obligations 
than others^ whose "one desire and design was to be a down- 
right Bible Christian," wh^ was called a '^^ Methoclkt,"'as he him- 
self informs us, not merely because he \vas thought to be " right- 
ous over much,''' but because he "laid too r^iuch stre^ss upon the- 
rubrics and canons of the Church," — who,, in his "'Reasons 
against Separation/" written at a time Vv'hen his judgement was 
mature, declared that " his affection for the Church was as strong" 
as ever,"' and that '*he saw his calling, to liye and die- in her 
communion" — can it be that su^h a man could be persuaded by 
any influences however artful and strong, to violate the most sol- 
emn of all his TOWS,- and throw to the winds the oft repeated and 
distinctly expressed determinations of his life ? I do not ask 
whether he might not change his opinion and openly renounce" 
his connection with the Church as a man honestly convinced of 
error, but remaining in it and professing* for it the warmest at- 
tachm^ent, could he so far forget the common obligations of mor- 
alit^r,: as to trample upon one of the m.ost sacred promJses mad^- 
a:t his holy ordination ? Really, this is another supposition which 
Yve knovv* not how to believe, and therefore do v/e declare that it 
will require no ordinary evidence to convince us of the fact.. 

III. Again, vre know that Mr. Wesley, as " the Father and 
Founder" of the Methodist Society, often exercised the right of 
sending his preachers to particular fields of Isibor, and that in do- 
ing so, he frequently laid his hands upon them in token of his 
blessing ; and this pi^actice he professed to have derived from 
Acts xiii, 3, where, it seems, that certain Prophets and Teaeheis- 



DEFENDED.. 79* 

Iki'cF their hancfs on BarnalSas and Saul, previous to their depar- 
ture for a particular work to which the Holy Ghost had appointed 
them-. This transaction which I may have occasion hereafter to^ 
explainv and which Dr.. Ba^ngs lias most erroneously described as 
a Presbyter ordination,, (a great error as any one may see by read- 
ing the' tvv:o^ chapters tagether,) — this, transaction Mr. Wesley 
correctly understood, as nothing more than a parting benediction,. 
and hence in his letter to. Mr.. Truro, (;see Watson's Life, p.; 
256,) he thus speaks upon^ the subject:- 

•Ttiui and Barnabas were separated for the work towliich they werpcalled. 
This v/as not ordaining. themi — it was onl^y indiictin>g them to the province for 
v/hich our Lord had appointed them. For this end the Proph.ets and Teachers- 
fnsted, prayed and laid their hands upon them' — a rite which^ was used, not iB< 
ardinatiun only, but in blessing, and on many other occasions." 

Hence we argue as Mr.. WatsoB argues,, that when Mr.. Yv'esley 
^separated any of his preachers for any pa^i?ti•cula^ field of labor.,, 
by the- im.position of his hands,, this was not intended by him nor 
should it be understood by us,, as an or dvn.au on to I he Idinistry^. 
and hence, irt order to prove the ordination of Dr. Coke, it is ne- 
cesary that somve stronger evidence should be presented than* 
merely the imposition of Mr,. Wesley's hands.. 

IV. Again,, we know: from Lee's History of Methodism, (p. p.. 
127 — -29,), that when the Methodist Society was first organized; 
in this country under Messrs.. Coke and Asbury, these gentlemen' 
were not known as Bishops, the title was not assumed,, nor was^ 
it assumed until about three years after the orgs:^nisation, and' 
then without the knowledge or consent of the Conference.. Vv^e 
know, too, that many of the preachers were opposed' to the change,, 
a-nd that after considerable debate iu the Confereiiice a vote was 
passed,, not approving of the act, but acceding to tiie request of 
th* Superintendents upon Mr. Asbury 's explanation of the tennv 
to allow it to. i^emain. Had Mr. Wesley actually intended tO' 
consecrate Dr. Coke a Bishop in the Episcopal sense, could there 
have been any doubt of th<3 fact at that early day, when all tho 
actors in the scene at Bristol were- then alive, and: s.ojue of wliom. 
"Were present ? 

V. A.rrain, we know that it was immediately afier this as-- 



80 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

sumption on the part of the Superintendents, (1788^) that Mr. 
Wesley wrote his celebrated letter of rebuke and expostulation 
to Mr. Asbury : — - 

John Wesley to Francis Ashuty, 

^' Lo:!ii)oii J September 20thy 1788, 

^^ There is', indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you 
stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I stand to a// the Methodists. 
You are the elder brother of the American Methodists; I am, under God, lh« 
father of the whole family. Therefore, I, naturally care for you all, in a man- 
ner no other person can do. Therefore, 1, in a measure, provid? for you all ; 
for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide, were 
it not for me— were it not that I not only permit him to collect) but support 
him in so doing. 

'' But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the Doctor and 
you differ from me, I study to be little, you study to be Q-rcat ; I creep, you 
strut along". I found a school, you a college. Nay, and call it after your own 
names! Oh, beware! Do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, 
and Christ be all in all. 

** One instance of this, your greatness, has given me great concern. How 
«in you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a Bishop ? 

''1 shudder, 1 start at the very thought! Men may call me a hnare^ or a 
fool^ a rascal^ a scoundrel^ and I am content; but they shall never, by my con- 
sent, call me a Bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a 
full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let Metho- 
dists know their calling better. 

*' Thus, my dear Franky, 1 have told you all that is in my heart, and let thU 
when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely, 

** I am your affectionate friend and brother. 

John WesleT. 

Dr. Bangs may strive to convince his readers, that Mr. Wes- 
ley here referred to nothing more than ** the pomp and ceremony 
which he had so long been accustomed to associate with the name 
tDf Bishop," and which he feared that Mr. Asbury was endeavor- 
ing to imitate ; and some persons, perhaps, may be so credulous 
a^ to believe this most curious and (were not the subject too se- 
rious) laughable interpretation. But reflecting people will be apt 
to ask some such questions as these=— can it be, that after Mr, 
Wesley had actually conferred the qffice^ he became so much 
alarmed and frightened at the bare mention of the naine ? Can 
it be that he really believed himself a Bishop, with all the au- 
thority of a Bishop, and able to confer the same office upon oth- 
ers, and yet, that he would sooner permit the world to call him 
*' a knave or a fool, a rascal or a scoundrel" than to give him nw 
own scriptural and proper title ? After having conferred the 



BEFENBED. 81 

Episcopate upon his friend, could he then adjure him by every 
possible solemnity to disown the fact by disclaiming the very 
name of his office ? 

But plainly, Mr. Wesley commences his Letter by reminding 
Mr. Asbuiy of the difference between them, in relation to all the 
Methodists — one was " the Father of the whole family," the oth- 
er was only an '' eider brother of the American Methodists," — 
one '* cared for all," the other for a part; and then having stated 
the difference between them, as showing that he had a peculiar 
right to speak and be heard, he commences his reproof and 
makes it ten fold heavier by the consideration; that if Mr. Wes- 
ley, the father and founder, did not presume to consider himself 
a Bishop, how could one of his sons! how could Mr. Asbury ! 
And how severe the allusion to the Presbyterians ! They were not ' 
endeavoring to ape the m^anners of royalty^ but they did confound 
the distinction between Presbyters and Bishops, aud called their - 
ministers Bishops. Mr. Asbury had no peculiar affection for 
them, and hence says Mr. Wesley, " Let the Presbyterians do 
as they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better." 

What trifling with our common sense for an individual to tell 
us that Mr. Vf esley only referred to the name, and this in conse- 
quence of its pompous associations ! Had not Mr. Vv^esley been to 
this country and did he not know the trials and privations which 
at that early season a Scriptural and Apostolic Bishop would have 
to endure? Did he not know of many self-denying and devoted 
Bishops — martyrs and confessors of his own belov^ed Church — 
and had not the name been hallowed in Scripture and b}^ the 
Spirit of the Living God ? No, Mr. Wesley could never have ob- 
jected merely to the na7iie — it was the assumption of the office, the 
presuming to be that which Mr. Y/esley never had seriously in- 
tended, and which we have reason to believe brought down his 
gray hairs in sorrow to the grave. After all this it will require 
no ordinary evidence to |onvince the impartial enquirer that Mr. 
Wesley ever consecrated Dr. Coke a Bishop. 

VL But again, we know that Mi. Wesley was a thorough go- 
ir^g and high-toned monarchist, especially at the close of his life, 

6 



/ 



82 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

sustaming- the King- and Parliament in all their measures against 
the American Colonies, declaring the men of the Revolution to 
be '^rebels," expunging, in consequence, the names of the Amer- 
ican Methodists from the General Society, (see Hampson's life, 
vol. 3d p 134,) and using all his tremendous influence, which Dr. 
Whitehead compared to that of a "mighty torrent gathering- 
strength in its progress, '' and which cauld eff^ect "the opinions of 
between 4 & 500,000 people on any important occasion w^hich 
might concern the Society or the nation at large." (see White* 
head's Life, vol. 2. p 474.) 

Who has not heard of his " Calm Address to our American 
Colonies" — " a hundred thousand copies of which were dispersed 
throughout England and Ireland, the effect of which, exceeded 
his most sanguine expectations" — great quantities of which w^eror 
sent to this country and their circulation suppressed, — andw^hich 
provoked the following celebrated rebuke from Junius? 

''I have read your Address to the Americans with much surprise and con- 
cern. That a man, after a long hfe devoted to the awful concerns of religion, 
and a rigidity of morals strikingly contrasted to the times, should, in his old age, 
step forth a champion in a political controversy, is a paradox only to^be solved 
by a reflection on the general motives of such compositions. They exhibit a 
proof, 3Ir. Wesley, that the most perfect men have hopes on earth as well as 
ia heaven; and, indeed, you have the modesty not to forbid us to believe so,'^ 

'' When you deliver yaur opinion, you say, you may be the better believed 
because unbiased; and then express yourself in this unguarded language — *I 
gain nothing by the Americans nor by the Government, and prohahly never 
shall.* This is not only an invitation to the- Minister to reward y ov>r pious la- 
bors, but a thorn in his foot, if he overlooks them. Had you said, and posi- 
tively never mill, I should then, as I aways have, believed you to be an honest 
and pious man." 

" And now, Mr. Wesley, I take my leave of you. You have forgot tha pre- 
cept of your Master, that God and Mammon cannot be served together. Yoa 
h3 ve one eye upon a pension and the other up to heaven — one hand stretched 
out to the King, the other raised up to God. I pray that the first may reward 
you and the last forgive you." 

Who has not read Mr. AVesley's surprising justification of thi» 

'' Calm Address"— first published ia" Floyd's Evening Post,'^ 

and now to be found in his journal of November 177-5. 

*' Sir, I have been seriously asked, 'from what motives did you pubhsh your 
Calm Address to the American Colonies?' I seriously answer, not to get 
money. Had that been my motive I should have swelled it into a shilling- 
pamphlet," &c. 

" Not to get preferment for myself or my brother's children," &c. 



DEFENDED, 83 

** Not to please any man living,'* &c. 

*' Least of all did I write to intiame any ; just the contrary. I contributed 
rriy will towards pulling out the fiarne, which rages all over the land ; this I 
have more opportunity for observing than any other man in England ; and I 
see many pouring oil into the flame by crying out, ' How unjustly, how cru- 
elly the King is using the poor Americans, who are only contending for theix 
liberty and their legal privileges.' 

'*Now, there is no possible way to put out this flame or hinder its rising 
higher and higher, but to show that the Americans are not used either cruelly 
or unjustly ; that they are not injured at all, seeing that ihey are not contend- 
ing for liberty; neither for any legal privileges; for they enjoy all that char- 
ters grant But v.'hat they contend for is, the illegal privilege of being exempt 
from taxation — a privilege this, which no charter ever gave to any American col- 
ony yet, which no charter can give, which, in fact, our colonies never had, 
which ihey never claimed till the present reign, and probably they would not 
have claimed it now, had they not been incited thereto by letters from Eng- 
land. One of these letters was read according to the writer, not only at the 
Continental Congress, but likev/ise in many Congregations throughout the 
combined provinces. This being the real state of the question without any 
coloring or aggravation, what impartial man can either blame the King or 
commend the Americans. With this view, to quench the fire, by laying the 
blame where it is due, the Calm Address was written," 

But more than this, — who has not read the author's siippli- 
ment to this " Calm Addres," written ahout two years after, in 
1777, and entitled, "A Calm Address to the inhabitants of En- 
gland," and in which is found such language as this throughout — 

"Brethren! Countrymen! What are the reflections which now naturally 
arise in your breastsi Do you not immediately observe that after this huge 
outcry for liberty which has echoed through America, there is not the very 
shadow of liberty left in the confederate provinces. There is no liberty of the 
Press. A man may more safely print against the Church in Italy or Spain, 
than publish a tiitle against the Congress. There is no religious liberty, for 
what Minister is permitted to follow his conscience in the execution of his of- 
fice? There is no civil liberty." &c. 

" Do you not observe, wherever these bawlers for liberty govern, there is 
the vil?st slavery? !So man there can say that his goods are his own. They 
are absolutely at the disposal of the mob or of Congress." 

And for this frightful picture of America he professed to have 
the authority of letters from eminent individuals. 

** Do you ask, says a gentleman who writes from Pluladelphia, what is the 
present state of these provinces** You may see in Ezekiel's roll — such is the 
condition of this country 'It is written within and without, lamentation and 
mourning and wo.' See vol. 6 of Wesley's Works, p 330. 

Now it is not because I wish to hold up the memory of Mr. 
Wesley to odium, in consequence of his political opinions and 
prejudices, that I have introduced these facts, for sensible peo- 
ple have never considered him more than a man, and they will 



84 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

know how to make allowance for all such frailties in his charac- 
ter. It is not because I wish to show that his views and opin- 
ions are not always to be relied upon, — although there is pretty 
good evidence here, that having mistaken the political condition 
of America, he may not have acted altogether wisely when pro- 
viding for our religious vrants and interests. It is not because I 
wish to rebut the miserable attempt Tvhich has been made to ex- 
cite a prejudice against the Church, as somehow or other connec- 
ted with the Church of England, and therefore unfriendly to th« 
liberties of the country, — although Methodist Ministers should 
be careful in this particular, lest the force of their "historical re- 
membrances, '' shall be turned against themselves. It is not be- 
cause I would speak of the many worthy/ and excellent members 
of the ilethodist Society as holding the same views and opinions, 
although when some among them are so much influenced by the 
mere authority of human names, it is not wonderful that the 
name of their acknowledged "father and founder" should give 
weight and importance to his sentiments. It is not because I 
would Iring to light the singular inconsistency of J.Ir. Tv'esley, 
in sending his congratulatory letter to the ilethodists in Ameri- 
ca, for that " liberty wherewith God had so strangely set them 
free," and which, in his opinion, was no liberty at all. Xo I for 
none of these purposes have I expressly introduced the extracts, 
I but simply to show that a man so loyal to the King and Parlia- 
ment in all things, could scarcely be expected to turn inmiediately 
) around and violate one of the established laws of the same King 
\ and Parliament. And this, cert^anly, he must have done, if, as 
it is pretended, he consecrated Dr. Coke a Bishop, in the city of 
Bristol; for it was one of the established laws, that no individu- 
al should be ordained a Bishop in England " without the consent 
of the King and Parliament;" and this law referred, not only to 
the ordination of Bishops to act as Bishops in England, but to the 
ordination of Bi shops in England, for any part of the world. Did 
Mr. Wesley violate the law ? No or dinar}' evidence can convince 
us of the fact. 

VII. Again, we know that Dr. Coke is said to have been or- 



j)^FENi)ED. 85 

Gained a Bishop, Sept. 2, 1784 — that immediately after he set 
sail for America and arrived in New- York on the 3d of Novem* 
ber — that a general Conference was called and held its session 
in Baltimore on the 24th Dec. — that at that general Conference 
Mr. Asbury is said to h^va been ordained at three different times 
and by three separate ordinations^ 1st a Deacon, 2d an Elder, 3d 
a Bishop — that soon after the closing of the Conference Dr. Coke 
left the country for England, and arrived in England in time to 
attend the Engish Conference whicii commenced its session on 
the 26th of July. 

Now the question arises, how was he received in England ? 
As a Bishop? As even the Greek Bishop, Erasmus, had been 
received before ? as possessing a power and authot'ity superior to 
Presbyters? superior to Mr. Wesley himself? So far from it, 
that Mr. ¥y"atson acknowledges that ^'he used no such title, and 
made no such pretension,''' 

But more than this. In the " History of the Rise and Progress 
of Methodism," I find the following record: "In the Conference 
of 1791, Mr. William Thompson was chosen President, and Dr. 
Coke Secretary,''^ *'In 1792 Mr. Alexander Mather was chosen 
President, and Dr. Coke Secretary ;^^ and so in three following 
Conferences we find the same Dr. Coke acting, not as Bishop, 
not even as Superintendent, but Secretary. Can it be, then, that 
Mr. Wesley really intended to confer the Episcopate upon Dr. 
Coke — to make him a Bishop by a triple ordination — to give 
him any ^^ fuller poioers^'' than those which he possessed as a sim- 
ple Presbyter, and this not merely in the Methodist Society, but 
**m the Church of God,'''' according to the ordination service in 
the Book of Discipline ? Can this be believed, and yet '^ no such 
title be used, no such pretension be made," and no kind of res- 
pect be paid either to the man or the office, in consequence of 
Mr. Wesley's ordination, and this in the very place where it is 
said that all the powers of the Episcopate were, indeed, confer- 
red? Here, then, is another reason Avhy no ordinary evidence 
can convince us of the fact. 

VIII. But again we know, that in the '"Annotations" of Messrs. 



\ 



Ob THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

Coke and Asbury, this reason is giren for the exercise of certain 
Episcopal duties; for in answer to the questions, "What is the 
Bishop's duty," and "Why," — it is said, ''Mr. Wesley didso,'' 
**jHe "presided in the Conferences; fixed the appointments of the 
preachers for their several circuits^ changed^ received or suspended 
preachers — superintended the temporal and spiritual business, and 
consecrated tioo Bishops, Thomas Coke and, Alexander Mather^ 
one before the present Episcopal plan took place in America, the 
other afterwards^ 

Now, v/ithout speaking of the strange reason here given for 
the exercise of important ''temporal and spirituaV^ duties by 
Christian Ministers; without remarking upon the extraordinary- 
fact that the practice and writings of the Apostles seem to have 
been forgotten, and the example of Mr. Wesley held up as bind^ 
ing, or at least sufficient for them; without alluding particularly 
to the acknowledgment, that when the first Bishop (Dr. Coke) 
was consecrated, " the present Episcopal 2^^<^'^^^" had not taken 
place, I would direct attention especially to the fact that a new 
Bishop is here introduced— ^one whose name is not generally to be 
found in the catalogue, and who, it is probable, never claimed 
for himself this high and exalted dignity. Mr. Alexander Math- 
er, a Bishop! When did his consecration take place? After 
that of Cr. Coke, we are informed; but when? Has no record 
been kept of the transaction ? Does not every body know that 
the most remarkable characteristic in all Mr. Wesley's writings, 
is the minuteness of his private journal, taking notice of the most 
trivial incidents, and yet, in no part of his works can I find any 
allusion to Mr. Mather's consecration. There are letters to Mr. 
Mather and letters respecting him, but not the slightest reference 
to him either as a Bishop or as possessing any higher authority 
than a plain Methodist preacher. True it is, that I find this re- 
cord August 1st, 1785, " Having with a few select friends, w^eigh- 
e-d the matter thoroughly, I yielded to their judgment, and set 
apart three of our well tried preachers, John Pawson, Thomas 
Hanby and Joseph Taylor to minister in Scotland.''^ Now these 
men, it seems, were already preachers, and their setting apart, 



DEFENDED. 87 

'eons'isted in sending them to ** minister'" in a particular field of 
labor. Was any thing more intended by Mr. Wesley? Has be 
not explained his conduct in his remarks upon the case of Bar- 
nabas and Saul? In what other way did he consecrate Mr. Ma- 
ther, a Bishop? And may it not be, after ail, that this is the 
only way in which he ever consecrated Doctor Coke ? 

Here, then, for the present, I shall rest the question, and pro- 
ceed in my next^ to the examination of the direct testimony. 

Yours, &€. 

J.A. B. 



THE CLAIMS OF METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 

[continued.] 



Dear Sir — ^With all the light, which the facts stated in mj 
preceding letter, are able to shed upon the- subject, I come now 
to an examination of the direct and positive evidence by which 
the claims of Doctor Coke are supposed to be sustained, and by 
which it is maintained, that Mr. Wesley really intended to con- 
secrate a Bishop for America. 

The reader will reniember the proposition in my last — not that 
there is no evidence, but that there is no good and sufficient evi* 
dence; and from what has already been said, I think every indi- 
vidual must at once acknowledge, that no ordinary evidence should 
convince us of the fact. We require such proof as shall overbal- 
ance the difficulties and objections. 

I. The first witness whom I shall call to the stand is Dr. 
Whitehead, the author of the first published, and the most au- 
thentic and valuable Memoir of Mr. Wesley; his most intimate 
and confidential friend, who was with him in his last moments, 
and preached his funeral sermon; who was requested immedi- 
ately after by the English Conference to write his life, and was 
one of the individuals to whom Mr. Wesley left his manuscripts 
by will. 

What is the testimony of Dr. Whitehead? 

" It is not easy" (says Dr, W. vol. 2, p 415,) to assign a sufficient reason 
why Mr. Wesley in \\\?, eighiy-second y^ear s\iovXi\ depait from a line of con- 
duct he had hitherto so strictly observed; especially if be acted according to 
his own judgement, and of his own free choice. However this may be, a plan 
was proposed in private, to a few Clergymen who attended the Conference this 
year, (1784) at Leeds, that Mr. Vvesley should ordain one or he o prcacke2's for 
the Societies in America. 

But the Clergymen opposed it. Mr. Fletcher was consulted by letter, who 
advised, tJiat a Bishop shoidd he prerailed upon, if possible, to ordain tliem; 
and then Mr. Wesley might appoint to such offices in the Societies as he 
tiiought proper, and give them letters testimonial of the appointments he h^d 



DEFENDED. 89 

given them. Mr. Wesley well knew, that no Bishop would ordain them at 
his reroramendation, and therefore seemed inclined to do it himself. In this 
purpose, however, he appeared so languid, if not wavering, that Dr. Coke 
thought it necessary to use some further means to urge him to the performance 
of it. Accordingly, August 9th, Mr. Wesley being then in Wales, on his way 
to Bristol, the Doctor sent him the following letter,'* 

Here, before giving- the letter, let us pause to reflect. 

We find that now for the first time in the history of Metho- 
dism, the plan of ordination, is proposed, — not of a mere setting 
apart or appointing to certain fields of labor, as had heretofore 
been done, but of actual ordination. This plan, however, did not 
then embrace the ordination of a Bishop to organize a '* Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church in America," but of '^one or two preachers 
for the Societies. "^^ Up to this time, it will be remembered, all 
the preachers in America were Laymen, — they did not presume \ i 
to consider themselves Ministers authorized to administer the sa- 
craments; and Pv'Ir. Asbury had written to Mr. Wesley informing 
him of their destitute condition, in this respect, and of a " schism" 
in consequence of some of the preachers attempting to adminis- 
ter the sacraments, which " schismatical spirit," Mr. Asbury had 
*^beat down;" and then Mr. Asbury was requested ^'to take 
proper measures, that the people might enjoy the privileges of 
other Churches, and no longer be deprived of the Christian sa- 
craments." We understand, therefore, that this *'plan propos- 
ed" at Leeds, was for nothing m.ore than the ordination of on© 
or two preachers, not to ordain others, not to act as Bishops, but 
to supply the present necessities and administer the sacraments 
to the people. 

We find, that this plan, was not openly proposed to the Confer- 
ence, as so important a measure affecting the whole body and be- 
ing confessedly new, certainly should have been ; but '' in private, 
to a few Clergyraen,^'' — and we find that by these Clergymen even 
this plan was opposed; and'Mr, Fletcher, the well known author 
of the " Appeal, &:c.," whose writings will ever be held in high 
estimation by all Christians, and whose influence then, among 
the Methodists was scarcely less than that of Mr. Wesley him- 
self, advised ordination, not by Mr. Wesley, but by a Bishop^ 
and showing thereby, that in his estimation, Mr. Wesley was no 



f 



90 THE EPISCOPAL CHTJUCH 

Bishop in the proper acceptation of that term, nor possessed of 
any power of ordination. 

We find, also, that Mr- Wesley had then arrived at that period 
of life, when his faculties began to wane, — when as a means of 
prudence, in human laws^ men are not generally allowed even to 
:8it in jjadgement upon the temporal interests of the world, and 
when, considering the frailties of human nature, it is not won- 
derful that he should seem inclined to do it himself^ and this, not 
because he thought that he possessed the power^ but because 
*^ he knew that no Bishop would ordain tliemy 

Here it may be stated that the Episcopal Church in Connecti- 
eut had already organized under the new state of things, and had 
elected Dr. Samuel Seabury their Bishop, who was then in En- 
gland for the purpose of obtaining the Episcopate, and was final- 
ly consecrated in Scotland on the 14th of November of the same 
year, before the meeting of the Conference at Baltimore on the 
=24th of the succeeding month, when Dr. Coke was received. 
This fact will account for the haste of Dr. Coke, and for the rea- 
son why Mr. Wesley knew that " no Bishop would ordain them." 
We find, also, that notwithstanding Mr. Wesley's inclinations ^ 
he was still ''languid^ if not wavering^''' and as his letter, which 
we are to consider hereafter will show, he had some ^^ scruples^* 
of conscience. Hence, in using some further means to urge him 
to the performance of it," Dr. Coke wrote to him the follow^ing" 
'% letter, referred to above by Dr. YvHiitehead: 

/ *' Honored and Dear Sir, 

*^The more maturely I consider the subject, the mo»*e ej'pedientit appears 
to me, that the power of ordcuuing others, slwidd be received by me from youj 
by the imposition of your hands; and th^it you should lay hands upon brother 
Whatcoat, and brother Vasey, for the following reasons : 1. It seems to me 
the most scriptural way, and most agreeable to the practice of the primitive 
churches. 2, I may want all the influence in America, which you can throw 
into my scale. Mr. Braekenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter 
in London, from Mr. iVsbury, in which he observed, that he would not receive 
any person deputed by you with any part of the superin tendency of the work 
invested in him; or words which evidently implied so much. I do not find any, 
the least degree of prejudice in my mind against Mr. Asbury, on the contrary 
a very great love and esteem; and am determined not to stir a finger without 
his consent, unless mere sheer necessity obliges me; but rather to lie at his 
feet in all things. But as the journey is long, and you cannot spare me often, 
and it is well to provide against atl events, and an authority/brmaZ^?/ received 



y 



DEFENDED. 91 

from you, will (I am conscious of it) be fully admitted by the people, and my 
exercising the office of Ordination without that formal authority may be dis- 
puted, if there be any opposition in any other account: I could therefore ear- 
nestly wish you would extend that power, in this instance, which I have not 
the shadow of doubt but God hath invested you with for the good of uur con- 
nexion. I think you have tried me too often to doubt, whether I will in any 
degree use the power you are pleased to invest me with, further than 1 believe 
absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work. In respect to my breth- 
ren (Whatcoat and Vasey) it is very uncertain indeed, whether any of the 
clergy mentioned by brother Rankin, will stir a step with me in the work, ex- 
cept Mr. Jarratt; and it is by no means certain that even he will choose to 
join me in ordaining: and propriety and universal practice make it expedient, 
that 1 should have two Presbyters with me in this work. In short it appears 
to me that every thing should be prepared, and every thing proper to be done 
' that can possibly be done tMs side thewater. You can do all this in Mr, C— n'a 
house, in your chamber; and afterwards according to Mr. Fletcher's advice 
[Mr. Fletcher advised ordination by a Bishop'] give us letters testimonial of 
the different offices with which you have been pleased to invest us. For the 
purpose of laying hands on brothers Whatcoat and Vasey, 1 can bring Mr. C. 
down with me, by which you will have two Presbyters with you. In respect 
to brother Rankin's argument, that you will escape a great deal oi odium by 
omitting this, it is nothing. Either it will be known or not known; if not 
known, then no odium will arise: but if known, you will be obliged to ac- 
knowledge that 1 acted under your direction, or suffer me to sink under the 
weight of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the head of them. I shall 
entreat you to ponder these things. 

Your most dutiful 

T. Coke." 

*^ This letter," says Dr. Whitehead, *' affords matter for several observations 
both of the serious and coviic kind; but I shall not indulge myself on the oc- 
casion it so fairly offers. The attentive reader who examines every part of 
it, will be at no loss to conjecture to whose influence we are to im{)ute Mr. 
VVesley's conduct in the present business. That Mr. Wesley should suffer 
himself to be so far influenced, in a matter of the utmo^Jt importance both to 
his own character and the Societies, by a man, of whose judgement in advis- 
ing, and talents in conducting any affair he had no very high opinion, is truly 
astonishing; but so it was! Mr. Wesley came to Bristol, and, September 1st, 
every thing being prepared as proposed above, he complied with the Doctor's 
earnest wish, by consecrating him one of the Bishops, and Mr. Whatcoat and 
Mr. Vasey, Presbyters of the new Methodist Episcopal Church in America, 
No doubt the three gentlemen were highly gratified v/ith their new titles- as 
we often see both young and old ehiUlren gratified with gilded toys, though 
clumsily made, and of no real value or use excepting to quiet the cries of those 
tor whom they are prepared." 

Again says Dr. Whitehead, speaking of Dr. Coke's reasons — '* All this ia 
inielligible and clear, and I am confident tliese reasons would have satisfied 
any man, in similar circumstances, who had considered ordinuiion as a viers 
stalking-horse, to gain influence and dominion." 

Here, then, is the testimony of Dr. Whitehead, and although 
it is evident that he regarded the ordination of Dr. Coke to the 
Episcopate hy Mr. Wesley as a matter of joke rather than of se* 



92 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

rious consideration, so far as it concerned his real title to that 
office, still it is testimony unequivocal to the fact that in his opin- 
ion, Mr. V/esle}- did intend so to ordain him. 

But after all, this is only the opiJiioji of Dr. Whitehead, deser* 
ting indeed of great respect, but at the same time not being foun* 
ded upon any documents under the hand of Mr. Wesley himself, 
nor upon any express declarations from him so far as we know» 
we may certainly be permitted to dissent, or at least to examine 
the facts stated by him, and see whether they bear him out in the 
opinion. 

What says the letter of Dr. Coke ? Evidently it does not comfe 
out plain^ and express the desire that Mr. Wesley should conse- 
crate him a Bishop. Merely for the sake of '' expediency, ^^ not 
because he thought that Mr. Wesley could really confer upon 
him any authority which he did not before possess, but to give 
him greater ^^ivfluence,^^ and enable him to meet the objections 
which might be urged against him on his arrival in this country 
— for these reasons he desired only a '^formaV^ ordination, not a 
real one, but one which should look like it, and be acknowledged 
by the people, and especially by Mr. Asbury, who might stand 
in his way, as he had some reason to fear. It was this power, 
the power of giving his influence, which he thought without a 
shadow of doubt, God had invested him with, and this not for 
the good of the Church, as he Vv^ould have said if he had refer- 
red to any other power, but ^^for the good of our connexion.''^ 

In all this letter there is no appeal to Mr. Wesley actually to 
consecrate him a Bishop — no exposition of his design to establish 
a new Church, and no aclfnowledgement of Mr. Wesley's au- 
thority over him in the Ministry. And besides this, he desired 
Mr. Wesley to perform the act, the formal act, in secret, and ex- 
pressed his intention to keep it a secret, unless it should become 
absolutely necessary to divulge it, and therefore it might not he 
known. Surely then it may be that Mr. Wesley was imposed 
upon, unintentionally perhaps, but nevertheless imposed upon, 
and that he never intended to do that which Dr. Coke afterwards 
claimed, and, it may be, thought, he did. There is much room 



^ 



DEFENDED. 9S 

certainly to doubt, and therefore no good and sufficient reason to 
believe, that he ever seriously intended^ to consecrate Dr. Cok« 
a Bishop. 

II. I come nov/ to another branch of testimony — the opinions 
of the English Methodists at the time. Did they belisve that ,^ 
Mr. Wesley had ''departed from the line of conduct Avhich he 
had hitherto so strictly observed," and that he had really conse- 
etated Dr. Coke a Bishop ? On this subject Dr. Whitehead give^ 
us the following fncts under the head of " Opinions & Debates,*' 
&c. "on the new plr.nof ordination," (Chap. 5, vol. 2.) 

^* The following is part of a letter," says he '* from one preacher to another, 
■vA\ei\ the report that Mr. Wesley had ordained some of the preachers, first be- 
gan to be circnlated in the Societies. It may serve to show us what opinion 
tiie uninfected ilineranls eiUerloired of t'ais s!:-ange business:"' ^^ Ordination 
among Methodists! Amazing indeec! I could not force myself to credit the 
report which spread here, having not then seen the minutes, but now [ can 
doubt it no longer. Aud so we have Methodist Parsons of our own / and a new 
mode of ordination to-be-surc, on the Preshijterian plan ! In spite of a million 
declarations to the contrary I I am fairly corJounded. Now \he ice is broke, 
let us conjecture a little the probable issue of this nciD thing in the earth. You 
gay we must reason and debate the mntler. Alas! it is too late. Surely it 
never began in the iiiidst of p.. multitude of councillors. Who could imagine 
that this important matter would have stole into being, and be obtruded upon 
the body, withoat their bein,g so much as apprised of it or consulted on so 
weighty a point? Who is the father of this 'monster, so long dreaded by the 
father of his people, and by most of his sons? Whoever he be, time jciil prove 
him to he a felon to Methodism, and discover his assassinating knife sticking 
fast in the vitals of its body.'' 

** Another old preacher," says Dr. Whitehead, writing to his friend, deliv- 
ers his opinions to the following purpose. *'I wish tliey had all been asleep 
when they began this business of ordination; it is neither Episcopal nor Pres- 
lyterianj but a mere hodge-podge of inconsistency." 

Now these extracts introduced by Dr. Whitehead for the pur- 
pose of show^ing the general sentiment v/hich prevailed among 
the itinerating Ministers, are certainly enough for the purpose, 
and I confess that they are more then enough to prove tbat in 
tlieir opinion, Mr. Wesley had actually introduced a new plan of 
ordination, or rather that a nev/ plan bad been introduced. But 
notw^ithstanding all tbis, we are still disposed to defend the mem- 
ory of tbat great man, and to demand stronger proof, something 
more unquestionable than the mere opinioiis of methodist preach- 
ers then living ; something about w^hich there can be no mistake 



^ THE EPISCOPAL CHUUCS 

III. The next witness therefore whom I shall call to the stand 
is Mr. Charles Wesley, the younger brother and coadjutor of John, 
who began with him at 05:ford, and continued with him, labor- 
ing as faithfully in the cause of his divine Lord and Master, and 
with equal success, though with less prominence; and who car^ 
ried with him to the grave an unblemished reputation as an hoB- 
est and consistent Christian minister. (See Appendix.) 

What is his testimony? About four months after the suppos* 
ed ordination of Dr. Coke, he wrote a letter to the Rev. Dr. Chand- 
ler, of the Episcopal Church, who was then in London. An ex- 
tract from that letter I gave you in my second communication, 
but will here transcribe the whole as a valuable and important 
document connected Vvith the history of Methodism. 

Rev, Charles IVesley to Dr. Chandler. 

L0XD05, April 28tk, 1785. 

Reverend and Dear Sir- 
As you are setting out for America, and I for a more distant country, I think 
it needful to leave with you some account of myself, and my companions through 
life. At eight years old, in 1715, 1 was sent by my father, rector of Ejiwortlv, 
to Westminster school, and placed under the care of my elder brother Samuel, 
a strict Churchman, who brought me up in his own princijdes. In 17*27 I was- 
elected student of Christ Church. ?rly brother John was then fellow of Lin- 
coln. 

The first year at college I lost in diversions. The next I betook myself to 
etudy. Dihigence led me into serious thinking. I went to the weekly sacra- 
ment, aud persuaded two or three young scholars to accompany me; and like- 
wise, to observe the method of study prescribed by the statutes of trie universi- 
ty. This gained me the harm.less nickname of Methodist. In half a year my 
brother left his curacy of Epv/orth and came to our assistance. We then pro- 
ceeded regularly in our studies, and in doing what good we could to the bodiea- 
and souls of men. 

I took my degrees, and only thought of spending all ray days at Oxford; but 
my brother who ahvays had the ascendant over me, persuaded me to accom- 
pany him and Mr. Oglethorpe, to Georgia. 1 dreaded exceedingly entering in- 
to holy orders; but he over-ruled me here also; and I was ordained deacon by 
the bishop of Oxford, on Sunday, and the next, priest by the bishop of London. 

Our only design vvas to do all the good we could, as ministers of the church 
of England, to v/hich we were firmly attached both by education and princ - 
pie. My brother still acknowledged her the best national church in the world. 

la 1736 we arrived as missionaries in Georgia. My brother took charge of 
Savannah, and I of Frederica; waitmgfor an opportunity of preaching to th^ 
Indians, I was, in the mean time, secretary to Mr. Oglethorpe, and also sec- 
retary of Indian afiriirs. 

The hardships of lying upon the ground, &c. soon threw me into a fever and 
dysentery, which forced me in half a year to return to England. My brothef 
returned the next year. Still we had no plan but to serve God and the chuic^ 



DEFENDED.. ^S 

of England. The lost sheep of this fold were our principal care: not excluding' 
any Christians of whatever denomination, who were wilUng to add the power 
of godUness to their own particular form. 

Our elder brother Somae was alarmed nt our going on, and strongly express^ 
ed his fears of its endJni^ in a separation from the church. All our enemies 
prophesied the same. This conlirmed us the m-ore in our resolution to contin^ 
ue in our calling: which we constantly avowed both in pu-blic and private, by 
word and preaching, and writing; exhorting all ourr hearers to follow our exam- 
ple. 

My brother drew up rules f)r our Society, one of which was, constantly to 
attend the church prayers and sacrament. When we were no longer permitted 
to preach in the chiircheif, we preached (but never in church hours) in houses, 
or fields, and sent from thence, or rather carrif^d, multitudes to church, who 
had never been there before. Our socieiy, in most places, made the bulk of 
the congregation both at prayers and sacrament. 

I never lost my drend t>f a separation, or ceased to guard our society againsi 
it. I frequently told tliem, "I am you-r servant as lung as you remain mem- 
bers of the church of Eugland, bat uo longer. Should you ever forsake her 
you renounce me." Some of our lay-preachers veiy early discovered an incli- 
nation to separate, which induced my broiher to publish reasons against a sep-^ 
aration. As often as it appeared, we beat down the schismaiical spirit. If 
any one did leave the chitrch, at the same time he left our society. For fifty 
years we kept the sheep in the- fold, and having hlled the number of our days,, 
only waited to depart in peace. 

After our having continued friends for above seventy years, and fellowdabor- 
crs for above fifiy, can anything but death part us ? 1 can scarcely yet believe, 
that in bis eighty-second year, my brother, my old intimate' friend and com- 
panion, should have assunied the episcopal character, ordained elders, conse- 
crated a bishop, and sent hiin to ordjin the lay- preachers' in America. I was 
then in Bristol at his elbow; yet he never gave me the least hint of his inten- 
tion. How was he surprised into so rash an action ? He certainly persuaded 
himself that it was right. 

Lord Mansfield said to me last year, that ordlnaticm was separation. This my 
brother does not, and will not see; or that he has renounced the principles and 
practices of his whole life; that he has acted contrary to all his declarations, pro- 
testations and writings; robbed his friends of their boasting; realized the nag's 
head ordination; and left an indelible blot on his name, as long aa it shall be 
remembered. 

Thus our partnership here is dissolved; but not our friendship. I have ta- 
ken him for better for worse till death us do part, or rather reunite us in love 
inseparable. I have lived on earth a little too long, who have to see this evil 
day; but I shall very soon be ta!;en from it, in sttadfnst iaiih that the Lord will 
maintain his own cause and carry on his work, and fulfil his promise to hi» 
church; *^Lo, 1 am with you always, even to the end of the world." 
Permit me to subscribe myself, Pteverend and dear Sir, 

Your faithful and obedient servant and brother, 

Charles VVeslet^ 

P. S. What win become of these poor sheep in the wilderness, the American 
Methodists? How have they been betrayed into a separation from the church 
of England, which their preachers aiul they no more intended than the Metho- 
dists here? Had they had patience a little longer, they would have seen a real 
primitive bishop in America, duly consecrated by three Scotch bishops who had 
their consecration from the English bishops, and are acknowledged by them as 
the same with themselves. There is, therefore, not the least difierence betweea 



96 THE EFISCOPiLL CHTJBCH 

the members of bi^op Scmboiy's dmrcfa, and the membets of the dinrdkof 
Englmnd. 

Ton know I h&d the happiness to conTerec with that tmlj apostolic man, 
who is ei^eemed by &U thai know him, as mach as by too and me. He told 
me he looked epon ifce Meihod-sis in America as saand members ofthe chareh, 
and waa leadf lo crdain any of ihcir preachers, whom he efapnld nnddnly qua!- 
ified. His* ord- nation woaldbe indeed ^ennine, valid and episcv^pal. Bo t what 
are yoar p€»r MeLhoaists now! only a new sect of Presbyierians. And after 
my brofher'a deaih. which is now so very near, what will be their end? They 
will lose all iheir inSaence and importance: they will mm aside to Tain jans- 
lings: they vriil settle again upon their lees, and, hke other eeciB of diseeniera, 
come to noihing. 

" In ABgust," says !>. Wliitebead, " Mr. Charies Wesley took 

courage and wrote to his brother on the subject," from which 

letter the following extracts are given. 

*' I hsve been reiding o»^er and over cg^in yoir reasons against a separation, 
and entreat yon ia the canse ot God. and ior Chrjsi'a iake lo read shem again 
ycuraelf wi:h previons prayer: and grr-p and pmceed nofonher iiaii! yon receire 
an answer to ibe enqairy. Lord trhis tcmsUst ilbouia^e me to do? Every word 
ot your eleven pages desenres ibe deepest consideration; not !o mention my tes- 
timony and bymns. OrJy the eeTenih I could wieh yon to read — as a prophecy 
which I pray God mzj never come to pass. Near thirty yeare pince then, yon 
have stood sg^inst the importanate solicitations of yoar preacDers. who Imt? 
scarcely at ls£t prevailed. I was vonr natcral aily end fairbml f iend, and while 
yoncontinned fsiibfiil M yourself, we two could chase a ihoEsand. If ihej had 
tua diridfd us, tic^ could nersr hare orrrcome yoa. Bet when once yon began 
mdaimtng for Anierica, I knew, and y ^a knew, ihat y»ar preachers here would 
acTer rest. t'h\ yoa ordained ihem. You fold n^e, * Jbey would eeparaie by and 
bv.' The D>c:or tell? us the same. His • 2It:hi>d':st Episcopal Chnrch" at 
Baltimore wss ir.tended to be^et, a " JMcthodisi Episcopsl Church here. You 
know he comes armed with your auiboriiy :o make us ali disscmiers. One of 
your " Sons'* assured me that not a preacher In London, wonid refuse orders 
from the Doctor. It is eviiient thai all seek their own, and prefer their own in- 
terest to yowr honor; which not one of them scruples to sacrince io bis own am- 
bition. Alas! what trouble are you preparing ior ynurself. cs well as f«r me, 
and for your oldest and truest and be>t fneni?. Ber">re you cave q^iU hrokiM 
dmcn ikr bridge, st'^p and caneirJer. if y^or e->!!s bsvs no regard v*r y^o. have 
some regard frr yourself. Go to vo»r srezt in ptna: at least suuer me to go 
firet. befors tliie rnin be under yoar hand. So much I think yon owe to my 
father, to rcy broiher and to lae, as to etay iill I am laken from the eril. I am 
on the brink of the grsve, do nit push me in, or imbiiter my last momentau 
Let us not lea^a sn indelible blot upon our memory, — but let us leare behind 
us the name and caaracier o{ honest men,'* 

It was in answer to this, that it. John Wesley wrote the letter 
dated Plymonih, in my second communication, to which for that 
and for the reply of Charles, the reader is referred. 

After giving these letters Dr. Whitehead remarks : 

** Mr Charles Wesley ba« spoken chieSy of the impropriety of the step his 
brother had taken in ordaining Dr. Coke, &nd oihera in the character of a iiikop; 




n 



DEFENDED. • 07 

t)Ut It will be proper to make rn observation or two on the validity of his pro- 
<;eeding. The general pofcition he lays down is, that *' Bishops and Presbyters 
Jtcere the same order and had the same ri^ltt t& ordain.'' Upon this principle 
he ordained or consecrated Dr. Coke. INow, the very act of ordaining implies 
a svperior right or ?i superior authority, if it be allowed that Mr. Wesley had 
a svperior right to ordain the Doctor, then the general position is false, Ifit 
be said he had a superior authority but no surerior right, then it will follow that 
Mr. Wesley exercised superior authority without any right so to do; which is 
4he very thing ibr which he is blamed. In both cases, the ordination must be 
Toid and of no efiect. 

But according to Lord King [whose authority Mr. Wesley pleaded] the gen- 
•erp-l position is not strictly or universally true. From a comparison of various 
testimonies of ancient church writers, he draws this conclusion, ' that the 
Presbyters were different from the Bishops in grad.ej or in degree, but ihey 
were equal to them in ordi/ne or order. Me tells us that the Bishop was the 
.proper Pastor or incumbent o^,he Church over which he presided, and th;^.t the 
Presbyters in that Church were only his assistants or curates, and therefore 
.could do EOihing in' his church without his direction or permission. But what- 
ever superiority a Bishop had over the Preshytei-s of hisown church, it ic as sol- 
eninly a/tid puJ/lldy conferred upon hhni, by the general suffrage ol the Presby- 
ters and people over whom he was to preside, 1 suppose that if any Presbyter 
liad assumed the episcopal character witliout such choice and pubiic ordination 
to his oiRce, he would have been excommunicated by the other churches. But 
J^lr. Wesley was never publicly elected by any Presbyters and people to the 
office of a Bishop, nor even consecrated to it; which made his brother Charles 
«{iy, 

^ So easily are Bishops made, 

By man's or woman's whim, 
Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid 
But who laid hands on him*. 

The answer is, nobody. His episcopal authority^, was a mere gratuitous as- 
sumption oi power to himself, contrary to the usage of every church, ancient or 
niodern, where the order of Bishops had been admitted. There is no prece- 
dent either in the New Testament or in church history, that can justify his pro- 
ceeding in this affair. And as Mr. Wesley had received no riixht to exercise 
€pi5c<7p«^ authority, either from any Bishops, Presbyters or people, he certain- 
ly could noT convey any right to others. His ordjinations, therefore^ are sjmri' 
mis and of no valUUty. 

** Nor can Mr. Wesley's practice of ordaining be justified by those reasona 
which Presbyterians adduce in favor of their own method of ordaining to the . 
rninistry; for Mr. Wesley ordained not as a Presbyter, but as a Bishop! his 
ordinations, therefore, were not Presbyterian, nor will the arguments for Pres- 
byterian ordinations apply to them." 

Let us review the arguments on this subject reduced to a few propositions. 

ltd. Mr. Wesley in ordaining or consecrating Dr. Coke a Bishop, acted in 
direct contradiction to the principle on which he attempts to defend his prac- 
tice of ordaining at all. 

2nd. As Mr. Wesley was never elected or chosen by any church to be a 
Bishop, nor ever consecrated to the ofiice either by Bishops or Presbyters, he 
bad not the shadow of right to exercise episcopal authority in ordaining otiicry 
according to i}je rules of any church ancient or modern. 

3rd. Had he possessed the right to ordain, either as a Bishop or Presbyter, 
(though he never did ordain as a Presbyter,) yet his ordinaiious being done.iu 
secret, were rendered thereby invalid and oi no effect, according to the estab- 
lished order of the Primitive church arid of all Protestant churches. 



] 



WIS * THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

4th. The consequence from the whole is that the persons whom Mr. Wes- 
ley ordained have no more right to exercise the ministerial functions than they 
had before he laid his hands upon them, 

A scheme of ordination so full of confusion and absurdity, as that ?mon^ 
the Methodists, can surely n,ever filiate on Mr.. Wesley: it must have pio- 
ceeded from some more chaotic brain, where wild confusion reigns. Nor can- 
[ easily believe that iMr. Wesley vvou'd ever have adopted so mis-shapen a- 
brat, had not hia clear perception of things been rendered feeble and dim, by 
flattery, persuasion and age* 

But I willingly quit a subject v/hich is very unpleasant, and most sincerely 
wish that boththe practice of ordaining among the Meihpdists and the memory 
of it w^ere buried in oblivion. And were ihc practice, which in my view of it 
is pregnant with mischief, totally to cease, never to be raised, 1 would tear th» 
memory of it from these pages, as soon as they are printed.'* Whitehead'^*' 
Life, voL 2, p 430-l>. 

Such is the tesiimon}^ of Mr. Charles Wesley, together with- 
the comments of Dr.- Whitehead. 

Now after such a mass of testimony coming from the best 
somTes, it may seem ta he highly presumptuous for any one to- 
douht whether Mr. Wesley really intended to consecrate Dr. Coke 
a Bishop; and yet I think it will appear in the sequel that this- 
is a point after all, which may be fairly questioned, for we havo 
no where found as yet any plain acknowledgement on the part of - 
Mr. Wesley, nor any document under his hand declaring thj^ 
fact., 

IV. I pass an therefore to the testimony of Dr. Coke, and for 
the purpose of saving time, I shall at once admit that he often 
claimed to have been consecrated a Bishop by Mr. Wesley; and* 
it has already been seen that soon after his arriTal in this countryj.. 
he met the Conference assembled in Baltimore, and there pre* 
tended to consecrate Mr.. Asbury a Bishop by a triple ordinatioru. 
On that occasion, "he preached a Sermon in which he labored- 
to defend the new state of things," and to convince the people^, 
not that he had received a mere ^'■formal foiceVy^ but a real and 
valid authority from Mr. Yv'esley himself. In relation to. thai 
Sermon Dr. Whitehead remarks as follows : — 

*' Dr. Coke begins this defence- by the most severe censures on the Clergy 
and on the English hierarchy. It would answer no valuable purpose to trans- 
cribe them, but it may be v/eli to observe the very striking dilTerence between 
the proceedings at the commencement of Methodism, and the practice noio 
adopted. ' We are not seceders,' said Mr.. Wesley, *nor do we bear any ^^e- 
semblance to them. We set out upon quite opposite principles. The aecedeca 



DEFEI^DED. 99 

laid the very foundation of tbeir work in judging and condemning oiliers; W3 
laid the foundation of our work injudging and condemning ourselves. They 
begin every where in showing their hearers how fallen the Church and Minis- 
ters are; we begin every where in showing our hearers how fallen they them- 
selves are.' l>r. Coke, in laying the foundation of his new Church in America, 
adopted the- principles and praclice, in this respect, of the seceders, and quitted 
those of the old Methodists. He tdls Mr. Weshy some timn afier^ in a Utter 
from Irclicnd, that he ivauld as soon cortimii adultcnj^ as preach publlcbj against 
thaCkurch," 

" Dr. Coke puts this question into the mouth of an objector, ^biit what right 
have you to ordain V ^The sam.e right,' ansv/ers the Dr. ''as most of the Pre- 
formed Churches of Christendom — oar ordination in the lowest viev/, being 
equal to any of the PrcshyUrian, as origvmiiing with three Prebyters of the Clu 
of England. It is po-sihie the Dr. might believe himself when he wrote this 
centence. '"But is it trae,' continues W^hitehead, 'that the presence of three 
presbyters in a private chamber, is the only requisite essentially necessary to 
give validity to an ordination among the Presbyterians'? I apprehend not. 
Nor do I know any denomination of dissent-crs aniong whom such a secret or- 
dination, would be deemed valid,' 

"Again Dr. Coke supposes an objector to ask—' but what right have you to 
exercise the episcopal oJjiceV ' To me,' replies the Dr., ' most manifest and 
clear. God has been pleased by Mr, Wesley, to raise up in America and Eu- 
rope, a numerous Society well knov/n by the name of 3Tcthodists.^ The whole 
body have invariably esteemed this man, as the Chief Pastor under Christ, 
He has always appointed their religious officers from th^ highest to the lowest, 
by himself or his delegate. And we are iuHy persuaded there is no Church of- 
fice, ichich he judges expedient, for the welfare oi the people entrusted to his 
charge, hut as essential to his station, he has a power to ordain. After a l"»ng 
deliberation, he saw it his duty to form his society in America into. an indepen- 
dent Church: but he loved the most excellent Liturgy of the Church of England; 
he loved its rites and ceremonies, and thcrrefore adopted th&m in most instances 
in the present case.' 

**lt is not easy,' says Dr. Y/hiteliead, ' to make observations on an argu- 
ment hke this, without falling into levity on the one hand; or too great severi- 
ty on the other. Brevity, therefore, will be the best security. The Doctor- 
states the matter thus, * He (Mr. Wesley) has alwayp appointed the religious 
officers from the highest to the lowest, (ainong, the Me^hodisis,) by himself of 
his delegate, and we are fully persuaded there is no Church ojjlce which h» 
judges expedient for the people, but as essential to. his station he has power ta 
ordain.' 

" Now, if these words contain any thing like an argument, they must mean 
that the officers whom Mr. Wesley had always appointed were Church officers^ 
Rnd consequently that his iSocieties were churches. M this be not the meaning 
then the words which go before, have no immediate connexion with the con- 
clusion drawn from them. The premises and the conclusion would speak of 
two things totally different, and therefore, the one could not be inferred from 
the other. But theminutes of Conference and Mr. W^esley's other writings 
testify in the most express manner, that the Methodist Societies were not 
churches; that the appointments and rules he made, n'ere nothing more than 
prujlential regulations, which he changed as circumstances altered. It can- 
not, therefore, be argued that because Mr. Wesley had always exercised the- 
power of making prudential regulations, for the government of his Societies,—^ 
be had a right to ordain any church officer he might deem expedient; which 
IS a thing quite different from what he had hitherto attempted to do, and con* 
Be'i'a^nily no right to do it, could arise out of his former practice.* 



100 TEE EPISCOPAL CKL'RCH 

** Bat there is another view of this argument,' continues Dr. Whitehead, 
* which Txiaixeo it appear still more absurd. Whatever ^02i^cr Mr. Wesley had 
always exercised over his Societies, it was no proof of liis right. Power and 
right are two thirip;^. Power does not imply right; otherwise the power of 
speech v/ould imply a risiht to speak treason; the pov/er of deceiving and rob- 
bing would imply a right so to do. Wiiatever rights therefore, Mr. W\^sley 
might have, for making prudential regulations for the Societies, it cannot bo 
proved from his power. But Dr. Coke here brings forward Mr. Wesley's 
powsrj and his former j^ractice of it, that he may do whatever he may think 
expedient for the good of the people. Novv'- if a man in common life were to 
plead his former practice in proof that he had a riglit to do what he might judge 
expedient in future, and should act upon this principle, I suppose he would 
soon be sent to Bedlam or to Newgate." 

Dr. Whitehead proceeds, *'I shall only notice one article more, in the Doc* 
tors Sermon. Besides,' says he 'in addition to this, we have every qualifica- 
tion for an Episcopal Church, which that of Alexandria, a Church of no small 
note in the primitive times, possessed for tvvo hundred years. Our Bishops or 
Siiperintcndenis as warather call them, having been elected or received by the 
whole body of our Ministers throughout the continent assembled in general 
Corference, 

**Novv the truth of the fict is," says Whitehead, "that the ordinatioPiS 
among the Methodists bear no resemblance to the ordinations in any primitive 
Church, either that of Alexandria or any other when deemed regular. '* 

**Lord King, on whose authority Mr. Wesley seems to rest his cause, tells- 
us, — 'at the ordinatirju of the Clergy, the whole body of the people were pres- 
ent. So an African Synod, held in 258, determined, 'That the ordination of 
ministers ought to be done with the knou-ledge and in the pr^^sence of the peo- 
ple; that the people being present, either the crimes of the wicked may be de, 
tected, or the merits of the good declared; and so the ordination may be just 
and lawful, being approved by the suffrage of all.' To the same purpose, 
speaks Clemens Romanus, an apostolic man, who having been acquainted with 
the Apostles themselveSjknev/ their customs in all the Churches. Pie shows ua 
in his hrst epistle to the Corinthians, that the custom was to ordain, icitk tho 
consent of the lohole Church. So Origen says, in his 8th Homily on Leviticus, 
' In ordaining a Minister^ the presence of the people is necessary.' The testi- 
monies of the ancient v/riters on this head are very numerous, and might easily 
be produced, but the authorities already mentioned v/ill hardly be disputed. 
It is, indeed, evident from the Apostolic Constitutions, Lib. 8, cap, 4, and 
other testimonies, that in the first ages of the church, the people generally chos$ 
their own Ministers; and in every case of an election, their consent and ap- 
probation was essentially necessary. But in direct opposition to the practice 
of the primitive church, the ordinations amorg the Methodists were performed 
in secret. The people were not assembled. They were not consulted, nor even 
so much as acquainted, that Ministers were to be ordained among the Metho- 
dists as their proper pastors. The v^hole was performed by an arbitrary pow- 
er, in the exercise of which no reo'ard was hnd to the rights of the people, ns 
having either judgement or chioice in the matter. But Dr. Coke tells us, Mhey 
have the same qualificatioiis for an episcopal Church, v^'hich the Church of AU 

* The case of the Church in Alexandria is pleaded by Dr. Bangs. The rea- 
der v»iH find in the following works a full and satisfactory examination not on- 
ly of this case, but of the others mentioned by him, in " Slater's Draught," 
Cooke's Essay, Bowden's Letters, Chapin's Primitive Church. &c. 



DEFENDED. 101 

cxandria possessed, ' our Bishops,' says he, Miaving been elected or rccdxed^ 
by the suffrage of the whole body of oar Ministers through the Continent as- 
eembled in general Conference.' 

There wer« but two Bishops, so called, Dr- Coke and Mr. Asbury. The 
Doctor was ordained or consecrated (if the reader cboose) secretly in England, 
and received orders to ordain Mr. Asbery in America, Now, surely, these 
were not elected, in any sense whatever, either by the preachers or people. 
* But they were elected or received.' Whf^n a writer thus links words to^f^eth- 
er of a diiTerent import, as though the meaning amounted to the same thing, 
we have just cause to suspect thu he intends to deceive us, and lead us into a 
false notion of the subject he is discu-smg — Rccciced, perhaps, they might have 
been, under a system of arbitrary government, which leaves no alternative to 
the people, nor to many of the preachers, bat that oipasske ohcdlcnce^ or to go 
about their business and quit the connexion. But their being received in any 
way, is nothing to the point in hand. It is, indeed, manifest, that the whole 
affair from first to last, bears no resemblance to tlie mode of electing fmd or- 
daining Ministers in the purer ages of the primitive Church." See White- 
bead's Life, London Edition, vol. 2, cap. 4, p. 426 — 9. 

Here then we have the testimony of Dr. Coke, — the fact that 
he pretended to have received authority from Mr. Wesley to act 
as a Bishop — that in virtue of this authority he proceeded to the 
consecration of Mr. Asbury, that on that occasion he preached a 
Sermon in justification of his own conduct and that of Mr. Wes- 
ley — and we have had several extracts from the Sermon, together 
with the comments of Dr. Whitehead, whose life of Mr. Wesley 
was the first published and must be acknowicdo;ed the most au- 
thentic, and who is so far from denying that Mr. Wesley intended 
to consecrate Dr, Coke a Bishop, that in all his reasoning, he 
proceeds upon the presumption, that this intention is beyond 
dispute. 

Can it be then, that this is a question about wdiich there is any 
room for debate? One would scarcely suppose it possible, and 
yet after all I am unwilling to believe it myself, and I have no 
hesitation in saying that in the sequel it will appear, that in this 
respect Mr, Wesley not only may have been misunderstood, but 
that there are many reasons for thinking that he has been misun- 
derstood., The reader will remember that in our previous Letter 
we laid down a number of indisputable positions, all of which 
appeared to render it impossible for us to believe tluit Mr. Wes- 
ley could engage in the performance of such an act — and it was 
clearly proved that no ordinary evidence should convince us of 
the fact. He might set apart an individual to a particular field 



102 



THE EPISCOPAL CHXmCH 



of labor or appoint him to a special work and he might do thisty 
the imposition of his hands, and still it would not follow that ho 
had intended to ordain him to any order of the ministry — much 
less to the Episcopate. . 

V. Ic-ome now then to the instrument which Mr, Wesley gave 
to Dr. Coke — the credentials of his appointment — the deed of 
conveyance, as it -were, by which the latter claimed the title of 
Bishop. In such an instrument Ave should expect to find a clear 
and accurate description of the thing intended to be conveyed — ► 
a full and plain declaration of all that the grantor had given. 
That instrument is in the following words: 

"To all to whom these preseiats shall come, John Wesley, late fellow of 
Lincoln College, in Oxford, presbyter of the Church of England, sendeth gree* 
ting: 

■^^ Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North America, 
who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and dis- 
cipline of the Church of England, are greatly disLressed for the want of minis- 
ters to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, according 
to the usage of the same Church: and whereas there does not appear to be 
any other way of supplying them with ministers — 

^^ Know all men, that I, John Wesley) think myself to be providentially 
called at this time to set apart some persons for the work of the ministry in 
America. And therefore, under the protection of almighty God, and with a 
single eye to his glory, I have this day set apart as a superintendent, by the 
imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained minis- 
ters,) Thomas Coke, doctor of civil lavv, a presbyter of the Church of England, 
and a man svhom I judge to be well qualified for that great work. And I da 
hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a lit person to preside 
over tiie flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 
-and seal, this second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
seven hundred and eighty-four John Wesley.'* 

Let us examine this instrument with care. The writer in the 
first place describes himself — not as a Bisho]^ — not as claiming 
under any title whatever the right to ordain others, but a *' Pres* 
hyter of the Church of Englaiid^^ — and therefore as a Presbyter 
of that Church most solemmly bound not to transcend the duties 
and obligations of his peculiar oihce. He then sets forth that 
^'many of the people in the Southern Provinces of North Amer- 
ica, desire to continue under his care," — not that they wish to 
separate from him and form them.selves into an independent So- 
ciety or Church under any other individual, but that they wish to 
continue under his care. But more than this, that these people. 



DTEFE^DED. 103 

^*^'^till adhere to the doctrine anddisci/pUneofthe Ch, of England^ ^ 
' — not that in consequence of any recent changes in the civil gov- 
ernment of the country, they wish to change their religion — not 
that they have ^hecome dissatisfied vv^ith the Church of v/hich they 
are members either as to its doctrine or discipline, nor that they 
are desirous of violating any of its regulations ; but that they 
*' still adhere to it," and this in spite of Revolutions and blood- 
shed, for these events though they may change the outvi^ard con- 
dition of the Church and affect its members, yet they cannot de- 
stroy it. The Methodists in America therefore did not then wish 
^ to separate, nor did Mr. Wesley intend that they should. 

He then proceeds to say, that these people " are greatly dis- 
tressed for the vv^ant of ministers to administer the Sacraments 
of Baptism and the Lords Supper, according to the usage of the 
-Same Church" — not that they were distressed for the Vvant of 
.some individual to ordain their la3^-preachers and act as Bishop 
^atnong them, nor for the want of som.e individual to organize them 
into a separate and independent body, but the Revolution had 
tmfortunately compelled most of the regularly ordained Clergy- 
men of the Church of England, especially in the Southern Pro- 
vinces to leave the country, (see Havx^ks' History) and these peo- 
ple in common with other members of the Church, were greatly 
distressed for the want of the Sacraments, Vv4iich *' according to 
the usage of the same Church," can only be administered by 
Clergymen Episcopally ordained. 

Having set forth these facts, Mr. V/esley then proceeds to de- 
clare, that he "thinks himself providentially called to set apart 
some persons for the work of the ministry in America;" — not 
that he considered himself authorized to ordain any one to the of- 
fice of the Ministry, but providentially called upon, — from the po- 
sition which he occupied in the providence of God as the "Fath- 
er of all the Methodists," to set apart some persons for the work 
of the ministry in America — to send over some of the regularly 
ordained Clergymen, belonging to his connexion and under hid 
-care, to feed these "sheep in the wilderness." 

'VAnd therefore under the protection of Almighty God and with 



^ 



104 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

a single eye to his glory" — not being influenced by any sinistes^ 
designs, not intending any thing more than is here expressed^ 
*' I have this day set apart as a Superintendent, by the irnpositioii 
of my hands and prayer (being assisted by other ordained min* 
isters) Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, a Presbyter of the 
Church of England," &c. — not that he had ordained Thomas 
Coke according to the Ordination Service of the Clmrch of Eng* 
land, and admitted him to the order of a Bishop in the Church 
of God, — but that he had "'set him a-pnrt as a Supmnfendent^^^ 
in a particular field of labor, where other ministers were to be 
sent, and where it was necessary that some one should act as 
Saperinlendcnt ; — not that Superintendent and Bishop are the 
same thing, or convertible terms, for this is not the case- Every 
Bishop is in one sense a Superintendent indeed, but not every 
Superintendent a Bishop, for we have Superintendents of Socie* 
ties, of Schools, of Colleges, &c. and yet in virtue of iheir office^ 
as Superintendents, it would be absurd for them to claim to be 
Ei shops in the Christian Church. 

Having thus examined this important document, the only one 
v/hich can be regarded as a source of authority to Dr. Coke, I 
think we are fully authorized to draw the following conclusions : 

1st. That ichen this document ivas icritten,.Mi\ "Wesley did not 
intend that the Methodists in this country should separate from 
the Church of England, nor did he think that they desired to 
do so. 

2d. That 7vhen this document was ivritten.^ Mr. "Wesley had no 
design of establishing a new "Methodist Episcopal Church," in 
America, nor did he intend to do any thing more than to make 
some provision for the administration of the Sacraments to his 
people, and this " according to the usage of the Church of Eng- 
land," which had never been established here by law, and which 
as a pure branch of the Church of Christ could as well exist here 
after as before the Eevolution. 

8d. That Mr. Wesley did not then intend to ordain or conse* 
crate Dr. Coke to any office v/hatever in the Christian ministry^ 
'but only to ''^set him apart as a Superintendents" 



DEFENDED. 105 

4th. That in virtue of the authority here conferred upon hiniy 
Dr. Coke could not lawfully exercise the office of a Bishop in the 
Church of God. 

VI. Now it w^ill be remembered that this important document 
was signed on the 2d September, 1784, and if we should soon 
find another document written some days after, which appears to 
be inconsistent v/ith this, the reader must not be alarmed ; he^ 
must remember the age of the author, the person who is watb 
him, the remark of one of the Preachers quoted by Dr. Yfmte^ 
head about " inconsistencies," and more than all, he must let m& 
assure him that there are still other documents which may ex*^ 
plain the mysteries of this. 

LETTER 11. 

*' BRisTot, September 10, 1784. 
To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbiiry, and our brethren in Worth America: — 

By a very uncommon train of providences many of the provinces of Nortb 
America are totally disjoined from the mother country, and erected into inde- 
pendent states- I'he English governnieai has no power over them,, either civ- 
il or ecclesiastical, any more than over the states of Holland. A civil author- 
ity i? exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the provincial as- 
eemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecciesiaslical authority at 
alL In this peculiar siniation some thousands of the inhabitants of those states- 
desire my advice, and in compliance v/ith their desire 1 have drawn up a little- 
sketch. 

Lord King's account of the primitive diurch convinced me many years ago^ 
that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and conseqiu-ntly have the same, 
right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned, irom lime to time, to 
exercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preacheis. But I have- 
refused: not only for peace' sake, but because I was determined, as little as- 
possible, to violate the established order of the national Church, to v,'hich 1 be* 
longed. 

But the case is v/idely different between England and North America. Here- 
there are bisbops who have a legal jurisdiction. In America there are none> 
neither any parish minister: so that for some hundreds of miles together ther& 
is none either to baptize or administer the Lord's supper. Here, therefore, my 
scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself ai full liberty, as I violate no' 
order, and invade no man's right, by appointing and sending laborers into tht^ 
harvest. 

I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr, Francis Asbury to be joint 
superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Rieh^rd What- 
coat and Thomas Vasey to act as elders among them, by bapii^mg and admin« 
isteringthe Lord's supper. And I have prepared a liturgv, little dtllering from 
that of the Church of England, (I think the best constituted national chwcb 117/ 
the world,) which I advise all the travelling preachers to use on the Lord's day 
in all the congregations,reading the litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays,. 
and praying extempore on all other days. I also advise ihe elders to adniiiu,s» 
ter the supper of the Lord on every Lord's day. 



•^ 



\^ 



1 



106 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

If any one willpoint out a morerational and Scriptural way of feeding aTJi! 
'guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embraceit. At pres- 
,«jitl cannot see any better method than that 1 have taken. 

It has indeed been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part of 
<«i^r preacheTs for America. But to this I ebject, 1 I desired the bishop o{ 
London to ordain one, hut could not prevail. 2. If they consented, we knew 
the slowness of their proceedinge: but the matter admits of no delay. 3. If 
^ey would ordain them now, they would expect to govern them. And how 
•grievously would this entangle us! 4. As our American brethren are now 
^totally disentangled, both from the state and the English hierarchy, we dare 
cot entangle them again, either with the one or the other. They are now at 
€ull liberty, simply to follov/ the. Scriptures and the prinirtlve churches. And 
me judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God hai 
.«o strangely made them free. John Weslet. 

Now after examining this document with care, we think wd 
tnaj be justified in drawing the following conclusions: 

1st. That Mr. Wesley had " dfawn up a Uitle sketch,^' which 

vfie considered applieahie to the peculiar ecclesiastical condition of 

/the people of these Provinces, and that this *^ little sketch" was 

Qot the same as the Liturgy which is afterwards mentioned; for 

he says, "'and I have prep^ir.ed a Liturgy," &c, 

2d. That inasnuich as this " little sketcK'^ has never been gii^ 
j^ to the 7vorld, we have an undoubted right to conjecture what 
it contained^ and that the conjecture which many have made, 
^vho have examined Mi. Wesley's political opinions, and who 
bare considered what he says about the reasons for his sketch, 
that, " no one either claims or exercisss any ecclesiastical authority 
ai all,^^ — 7nay he true^ viz., that the "little sketch" contained 
some plan for the exercise of " Ecclesiastical authority^^ over tha 
Inhabitants of these Provinces. 

3d. That the Book of Lord King,, and the freedom of these 
Provinces from Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, are here pleaded by 
Mr. Wesley^ not in justification of any ordination of Dr. Coke, 
j(for according to his opinion Dr, Coke had been made a Bishop 
when he was ordained a Presbyter,) but in justification of his or- 
dination of " travelling preachers"-— preachers not already ordain- 
ed as Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey, and enabling them to admin* 
ister the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.. 

4th, That there is nothing in this document which declares 
that Mr. Wesley had ordained Dr. Coke, but only that he ha4 



\ 



DEFEND1ET>. 107 

"^^.appointed him and Mr, A slur y joint SMperintendents ;^^ and that 
whatsoever office or power Mr. Wealey hiad conferred upon Dr* 
Coke, he had also conferred upon Mr. Asbury, who was then 
more than 3000 miles from him, and could not therefore have 
been ordained by him. 

5th. That there is no declaration in this document that Mr. 
Wesley had even ordained Messrs. Whatcoatand Vasey, but onlj 
that he had "appointed them, to act as Elders^^ — an expression 
•which he could scarcely have used had he been fully convinced 
ithat he had made them, really Elders in the Church of God, — and 
me know as a matter of indisputable History that one of these 
gentlemen (Mr.. Vasey) was so far from considering himself an 
Elder in fact by this appointment, that he was afterwards ordain^ 
'td such in this country by Bishop White, 

6th. That so m.uch of Mr. Wesley^s advice as relates to the 
^se of the Liturgy is plain and express, and that the Methodists 
in this counti}^ should be more careful to follow his plain and ex* 
press directions than they are to adhere to those which, at best, 
-are doubtful and inferential. 

7th. That the reasons which Mr. Wesley gave, for not apply^ 
tng to the English Bishops for ordination are apparently good, but 
tinsustained by the following facts: — 1st. That the person whom 
Mr.. Wesley desired the Bishop of London, Dr. Lowth, to ordain 
was a " preacher who wished to come over to this country as a 
Chaplain in Lord Cormvallis' Army," (see Andrews' Letter,) and 
therefore the refusal of the Bishop to ordaia him, under those 
circumstances, did not imply his unwillingness to ordain under 
ithe circumstances of the present case, according to the advice of 
Mr. Fletcher. 2d. That the English Bishops have never claim- 
•ed the right to govern those whom they ordained for this country, 

8th, That Mr. Wesley did not intend this document to be 
.used as evidence that he had ordained Dr. Coke a Bishop, or 
that he had directed him to ordain Mr. Asbury a Bishop^ for all 
this would be utterly at variance with the letter which he after-* 
wards sent to the latter; and finally that there is no such cvj^ 
dence of the intende4 ordination or consecration of Dr, Coke a$ 



103 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

ought to be afforded in a case of so much importance, not only to 
the spiritual interest of men, but to the reputation and character 
of Mr. Wesley himself. 

VII. I come now, therefore, to another branch of Testimony, 
viz., the confessions of Dr. Coke; and here, in order to bring this 
letter to a close as soon as possible, I shall submit the documents 
with but a few observations, not doubting that the reader will 
necessarily draw such conclusions as will sustain me in the po- 
sition I have taken. 

LETTER V. 

Dr. Coke to Bishop White. 
This letter is reprinted from Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant EpisCP"^ 

pal Church, liret edition, pages 424 to 429. 
Right R.ev. Sir, 

Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a subject of grent importance* 
You, I believe, ere conscious that I was brought up in the church of Eng- 
land, and have been ordained a presbyter of that church. For many years I 
was prejudiced, even I think to bigotry, in favor of it: but lhrouy:h a variety of 
causes or incidents, to mention which would be tedious and useless, my mind 
was exceedingly biassed on theoiher side of the question. In consequence of 
this, I am not sure but I went farther \n the separation of our chuf ch in Ameri- 
ca, than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commissioji, did intend. 
He did indeed solemnly invest me, as fauns he had a right so to do, wiih Epis- 
copal auihority, but did not intend, I think, that an entire separation should 
take place. He, being pressed by our friends on this side of the water for min- 
I isiere to administer ibe irac raiments to then, (there being s'ery few ch^rgy of the 
; church of England then in the United Sta;cs,) went farther, I am sure, than he 
' would have gone, if he had foreseen some cvenis v/hich followed. And thial 

am certain of — ihnt he ia now sarry for the separniion. 
i But what cnn be done f »r a re-union, which 1 much wish for; and to nccom* 

; plish which Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use his influence to the ut- 
i most? The affection of a yery considerable number of the preachers, end most 
of the pe-'ple, is very strong towards him. notwithstanding the excessive ill ufi- 
osre ho received from a few. My interest also is not smnll; and both his and 
mine would readily and to the utmost be used to accomplish that (to us) very 
. desirable object; if a readiness were shown by the bishops of the protestant epi^ 
\ copal church to re-uniie. % 

\ It is even to your church an object of grent importance. We have now about- 
/ 60,000 adults in our society in these states, and about 250 trnvelling ministsra. 
and preachers; besidesa great number oi' local preachers, very far exceeding the ■ 
\ number of travollinir prenchers; and some of those local preachers are men of 
\ very considerable abilities. But if we number the methodists as most people 
number the members of their church, viz. by ihe families which constantly at- 
teu'l the divine ordinnnces in their places of worsiiip, they will mnke a larger 
body ihan you probnhly conceive. The society, I believe, may be s^f^ly multi- 
plied by five on nn average to .'zive us our stated conirregaiions; which will then 
r:rnoiint to :^()0,000. And if the calculn'ion which, I think, s^me eminent 
witers have made, be just, that three Sfihs of mankind are un-adult (if 1 may 



DEFENDED. 109 

use the expression) at any given period, it will follow that all the families, th* 
adults of which form our congre;jaiions in these states, amount to 750,000. 
About one litih ol' these are blacks. The work now extends in length from Bos 
ton to ihe soiub of Georgia; and in breadth from the Ailaniic to lake Champlain, 
Vermont, Albany, Red^iione, Hoisiein, Kentucky, Cumberland, 6lc. 
But there are many hindrances in the way. Can they be removed? 

1. Our ordained ministers will not, oUiiht not, to give up their right of ad- 
ministering the encraments. i doni ti^ink that the generality ofihern, perhaps 
none oi them, would -reiuse to submit to a re-orJmaiion, it' other hindrnncea 
were removed out of the way. 1 rnu5t here obycrve that betwoen 60 and 70 
only out oi'ihe two hundred and lii'iy have been oidriinrd presbyters, and about 
60 deacona, (only.) The pre::byte!S are the chtdcest of the v^hoie. 

2. The oilier preachers wouhJ h'lrdly submit to a re-miion. if the poseibiliiy 
|. of their rising up to ordinntiun depended on the present bishops in America. 

k Because though they are all 1 ihiidv I njay sr-ty, zealous, pious and very useful 
*• men, yet they are not aeqaQin[ed with the learned l«ngnai.'e8. iiesides, they 
% would argue, — If the present b!ehi)p3 would wave the anicle of the learned ian- 
V' gu:\e:e3, yet their successors might not. 

My decsire of a re-union is so sincere m\d earnest that these difficulties al- 
.niost moke me tremble: and yet something must be done belore the death of Mr. 
■Wetjley, ohervv^iee 1 shall despair of success: for though my influence among 
the methodisLs in these t^tates as well os in Europe is, i doubt not, increasing, 
yet Mr. Asbury, v/bose influence 33 vn'ry capital, will not easdy comply: nny, 
I-knovv he wiil be exceedingly averse to it, 

, ]n Europe, where some steps had been tnken, tending to a eeparntion, all is 
fit an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy to it, and I have lately borns 
an open nnd succcssiul testimony against it. 

Slirdl I be iavored with private interview with you in Philadelphia? Ishoil 
bethere, God willing, on Tnesdny, the i7lh of ivlay. Ifthiw be agreeable, FlI 
beg of you juat to signify it in a note diiected to rne, nl Mr. Jacob Eaker'f?, 
merchant. Market street, Philndelpbin: or, if you please, by a few linec: sent to 
me by the return of the post at Philip Ilngerg, Esq. in iinUimore, from yourself 
or Dr. Magnw, and 1 v/di wait upon you v/ith my friend Dr. Magaw. We can 
then enkirgeon ihvso ouijects. 

I am conscious of it, tiiat secrecy ia of grent importance in the present state 
of the business, till the minds of you, your brother bishops, and Mr. vVcbley, 1)6 
circumstantially known. I must therefore beg that these things be confined to 
yourself and Dr. Mngaw, till I hnve the honor of seeing you. 

Thus, you see, I have made a bold veniui'c on your honor and candor, and 
h'ive opened my v/UoIe benrt to you on the t-u'.iject as fyr as the extent of a small 
letter wl!i allow me. If you put equal coincidence in me, yon will find me can- 
di.(iand faith fid. 

;'J have, notwithstanding, beenguiUy of inadverteiicies. Very lately I f:)und 
ij^i'eelf obliged (-for the pacifying of my conscience) to \vritea penitential letter 
VO' the Rev. Mr. Jarratt, which gave him great saiiBiaclion: and for the same 
fenson I must write another to the Rev. Mr. Pettigrew. When I v/as last in 
America, I prepared and corrected a great variety of things for our nuigr.zinci), 
indeed almost every Thing that v/as printed, except sonjjp loose hints which i had 
, taken of one of my journeys, and which I left in my hurry with Mr. Asbury, 
without any correction, entreating that \w pan of them might be pri)Ued which 
would be improper or offensive. But through great inadvertency (I euppoi?o) 
he euilered some reflections on the cr(aract4\''s of the tVv^o above-mentioned gen- 
tlemen to bt' inserted in the magazine, for winch I am very Forr\-: and probably 
ehnll not rest till t have made my acknowledgement moro public; though Mr. 
Jarratt does not desire it. 



no THE EPISCOPAL CHURCff 

I ain not eure whether I have not also offended you, sir, by accepting of on§ 
of the offers made nie by you and Dr. Magaw of the use of your churches abont 
fix years ago on my ffrst visit to Philndelphia, without informing you of our 
plan of separation from the church of England. If I did offend, (as I doubt I 
did, especially f om what you snid on ihe subject to Mr. Richard Dallam, of 
Abingion,)! sincerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I'll endeavor to 
amend. But, alas! 1 am a frail, v/eak creature, 

I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I will claim from your 
candor — ^that if you have no ihou-jhts of improving this j^roposal, you- will buriv 
this letter, and take no morh notice" of it (for it would be a pity to have us en- 
tirely aUenated from each other, if we cannot unite in the manner my ardent 
wishes desire.) But if you will further negotiate the business, 1 will exphuo- 
my mind still more fully to you on the probabilities of success. 

In the meantime permit me, with grea» respect, to subscribe myself, 
Right Rev. sir. Your very humble servant iu Christ, 

Thomas Coxa* 

Bichmandy April 24, 1791. 

The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop White. 

You must excuse interlineations, &c. as I am just going mto the coimtr7,axuli 
Save no time to transcribe. 

This letter was given to the public in 1S04', in consequence of 
a denial of the fact of such application, by the Methodists in Ma* 
ryland. 

In this letter Dr. Coke expressly acknowledges, that he "went 
farther in the separation of our Church in America than Mr,- 
Wesley, from whom he had received his commission, did in-- 
fend" — that "Mr. Wesley himself went farther than he would 
have gone, ii he had forseen some events which follotved" — that 
"the generality of the ordained ministers, "perhaps none of them ^ 
would refuse to submit to a 7^eordination,^^ and he speaks of him- 
self only as a " Presbyter of the Church of England," though h© 
says^ that Mr. Wesley " did indeed invest him, as far as he had 
a right to do, with Episcopal authority.''^ 

In the Memoirs of the Church, Bishop ^Vhite has recorded thB 
folio vring facts as having taken place at an interview with Dx^ 
Coke som^e time after the above comm.unication — that "Dr. Cok« 
read a letter which he had written to Bishop Seabury, similar to 
that which he had- written to the author; but with the difference 
of his suggesting to Bishop Seabury as follows — That although 
the Methodists would have confidence in zvay engagements^,, which 
should be made by the present Bishops; yet there might in fu- 
ture be some, who on the arrival of their inferior grades of preacJ>- 



DEFENDED. Ill 

ets to a competency to the ministry, would not admit tHem as 
proposed in the letter — that to guard against the danger of this,. 
there would he use in consecrating Mr , Ashury to the Episcopacy — 
and that although there would not Be the sarrie reasons in his 
(Dr. Coke's case) because he was a resident of England ; yet as 
he should probably, while he lived,, occasionally visit America, ii 
WQuld not be fit, considering he was- Mr, Ashury^s senior ^ that h<i 
should appear in a loiver character than this gentleman, Thes:e- 
were, in substancey the sentiments he expressed; and on reading 
this part of the letter, he desired the author to take notice, that 
he did not make u, condition of what he had there written." (Se© 
Bishop White's Memoirs, p.- 170.) 

What- an extraordinary state of things is here unfolded! Can- 
ft be that Dr. Coke really believed that he had consecrated Mr^ 
Asbury a Bishop I Can. it be that he felt himself to be a Bishops 
in virtue of any authority which he had received from Mr. Wes*- 
ley? Is there any sensible man who can read this statement^, 
without perceiving that it contains a full confession on the part 
of Dr.- Coke, and', (so far as he represented Mr. Asbury), of Mr,. 
Asbury, that neither ot these Gentlemen looked upon themselves- 
as genuine Bishops in the Church of God; such Bishops as had 
been truly and validly consecrated to that high and holy office,- 

But here is another letter of Dr. Coke's taken from the corres^ 
pondence of Mr. William Wilberforce, the well known rhilatkr- 
thropist. 

LETTER Vi: 
Rev. Di\ Coke to Wm,- Wilberforce, Esq: 

At Samuel Hague's, Esq. 1[ 
Leeds, April 14, 1813. S 
Dear and highly respected Sir : — 

A subject vv^hich appears to me of great moment lies much upon 
my mind; and yet it is a subject of such a delicate nature, that I 
cannot venture to open my mind upon it to any one, of whoso 
candor, piety, delicacy, and honor, I have not the highest opinion, 
such a character I do indubitaby esteem you, sir; and as such, 
I will run the risk of opening my whole heart to you upon (ho 
point* 



112 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

For at least twelve years, sir, the interests of our Indian Em- 
pire have lain very near my heart. In several instances I have 
made attempts to open a way for missions in that country, and 
even for my going over there myself. But every thing proved 
abortive. 

The prominent desire of mj soul, even from my infancy, (I 
may almost sav,) has been to be useful. Even when I was a De- 
ist for part of ni}^ time at Oxford, (vv^hat a miracle of grace !) use- 
fuhiess was my most darling object. The Lord has been pleas** 
ed to iix me for about thirty-seven years on a point of great use- 
fulness. My iuiluence in the large Wesleyan connexion, the in- 
troduction and superintendence of our missions in different parts 
of the globe, and the wide sphere opened to me for the preaching 
of the Gospel to almost innumerable large and attentive congre- 
gations, have opened to me a very extensive field for usefulness. 
And yet I could give up all for India. Could I but close my life 
in being the means of raising a spiritual Church in India, il 
would satisf}^ the utmost ambition of my soul here below. 

I am not so much wanted in our connexion at home as I once 
was. Our committee of privileges, as we term it, can watch 
over the interests of the body, in respect to lav/s and government 
as vrell in m.y absence as if I was with them. Our missionary 
committee in London can do the same in respect to missions; 
and my absence v^^ould only make them feel their duty more in- 
cumbent upon them. — Auxiliary committees through the nation 
(which we have now in contemplation) will amply supply my 
place, in respect to raising money. There is nothing to influ- 
ence me much against going to India, but my extensive sphere 
for preaching the Gospel. But this I do assure you, sir, sinks 
considerably in my calculation, in comparison of the high honor 
(if the Lord was to confer it upon m^e in Kis Providence and grace) 
of beginning or reviving a genuine work of religion in the im- 
mense regions of Asia. 

Impressed with these views, I wrote a letter about a fortnight 
ago to the Earl of Liverpool. I have either mislaid the copy of 
it, or destroyed it at the time, for fear of its falling; into improper 
hands. After an introduction, drawn up in the most delicate 
manner in my povv-er, I took notice of the observations made'by 
Lord Castlereagh in the House of Commons, concerning a reli- 
gious establishment in India connected v\'ith the established 
church at home. I then simply opened my situation in the Wes- 
leyan connexion, as I have stated it to you, sir,above. I en- 
larged on the earnest desire I had of closing my life in India, ob- 



DEFENDED. 113 

serving that if his Royal Highness the Prince Regent and the 
government should think proper to appoint me their Bishop in 
India, I should most cheerfull}^ and most gratefully accept the 
offer, I am sorry I have lost the copy of the letter. In my let- 
ter to Lord Liverpool, I observed, that I should, in case of my 
appointment to the Episcopacy of India, return most fally and 
faithfully into the bosom of the established Church, and do every 
thing in my power to promote its interest, and would submit to 
all such restrictions in the fulfilment of my office, as the govern- 
ment and the bench of bishops at home should think necessary — 
that my prime motive was to be useful to the Europeans in India; 
and that my second (though not the least) was to introduce the 
Christian religion among the Hindoes by the preaching of the 
Gospel, and perhaps also, by the establishment of schools. 

I have not, sir, received an answer. Did I think that the an- 
swer was withheld, because Lord Liverpool considered me as 
acting very improperly by making the request, I should take no 
further step in the business. This may be the case; but his 
Lodship's silence may arise from other motives ; on the one hand, 
because he did not choose to send me an absolute refusal ; and, 
on the other hand, because he did not see it proper, at least just 
now^, to give me any encouragement. When I was in some doubt 
this morning whether I ought to take the liberty of writing to 
you, my mind became determined on my being informed about 
three hours ago, that in a letter received from you by Mr. Hey, 
you observed that the generality of the House of Commons w^ere 
set against granting any thing of an imperative kind to the Dis- 
senters or Methodists in favor of sending missionaries to India. 
Probably I may err in respect to the exact words which you used. 

I am not conscious, my dear respected sir, that the least degree 
of ambition influences me in this business. I possess a fortune 
of about 1200/, a-year, which is sufficient to bear my traveliing 
expenses, and to enable me to make many charitable donations. 
I have lost tw^o dear waives, and am now a widower. Our lead- 
ing friends throughout the connexion receive me and treat me 
with the utmost respect and hospitality. I am quite surrounded 
with friends who greatly love me; but India still cleaves to my 
heart. I sincerely believe that my strong inclination to spend 
the remainder of my life in India originates in the Divine Will, 
w^hilst I am called upon to use the secondary means to obtain the 
end. 

I have formed an intimate acquaintance with Dr. Buchanan, 
and have written to him to inform him that I shall make him a 



114 THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCH 

visit within a few days, if it "be conveniejat., — FroiBi Ms liouse I 
intend, Deo vdenlc^ to return to Leeds, for a day, and then to set 
off next week for London.. The latter end of last November I 
visited him before, at Moat Hill, his place of residence, and a 
most pleasant visit it was to me^ and also to him I have reason 
to think. He has been,, since I saw him, drinking- of the same- 
bitter cup of which I have been drinking, by the loss of a beloved' 
wife. 

I would just observe, sir, that a hot climate peculiarly agrees- 
with me. I was never better in my life than in the West Indies 
during the four visits I made to that archipelago, and should now 
prefer the torrid zone, as a climate, to any other part of the world. 
Indeed, I enjoy in this country, though sixty-five years of age,., 
such an uninterrupted fiow of health and strength as astonishes 
all my acquaintance They commonly observe that they have 
perceived no difference in me for these last twenty years. 

I would observe, sir, as I did at the commencement of my let- 
ter, that I throw in v;?eif on your candor, piety,, and honor. If 1 
do not succeed in rn v views of India, and it were known among 
the preachers that I ;.ad been taking,, (though from a persuasion, 
that I am in the Divine ¥/ill in so doing,) it might more or less 
affect my usefulness in the vineyard of my Lced, and that would 
very much afllict me. And yet, notwithstanding this, I cannot 
satisfy myself Vv^itliout nrrakrng some advances in the business., 
I consider sir, your brother-in-law, Mr., Stephen, to be a man of 
eminent worth.. I have a very higli esteem for him. I know 
that his yea is yea, and what he promises .he certainly will per- 
form.. Without some promise of confidence he might (;d he were 

acquainted with the present business) mention it to M. y. 

with whom, I know, Mr. Stephen is acquainted. If Mr. 

were acquainted with the steps I am taking, he would, I am near- 
ly sure, call immediately a meeting of our comittee of privileges,, 
and the consequence mi^'ht be favorable to my influence, and 
consequently to my suefiilness among the Methodists. But my 
mind must be eased. I must venture this letter, and leave the 
whole to God, and under Hina, sn, to you. 

I have reason to believe that Lord Eldon had, (indeed I am 
sure of it,) and probably now has an esteem for me. Lord Cas- 
tlereagh once expressed to Mr. Alexander Knox, then his private 
secretary in Ireland, his very high regard for me : since that time 
I have had one interview VvUth his lordship in London. I have 
been favored on various occasions with public and private inter- 
vie vv^s with Lord Bathurst. I shall be triad to have your advice 



DEFENCE]^, 



113 



whether I should write letters to those noblemen, particularly to 
the two first, on the present subject ; or whether I liad not better 
suspend everything, and have the pleasure of seing you in Lon- 
don. I hope I shall have that honor. I shall be glad to receive 
three or four lines from you,, (don^t write unless you think it may 
be of some immediate importance,) signifying that I may wait 
on you immediately on my arrival in London. 

I have the honor to be, with very high respect,. 
My dear Sir, your very much obliged, 
very humble, and verv faithful servant,. 

T. GOKE.. 

VIIL. I come now to the c/kracz^er of Dr. Coke. In the Meth- 
©dist Book of Discipline is the following declaration, that the 
Rev. John Wesley, "preferring the Episcopal m.ode of govern- 
ment to any other, solem_nly set apart, by the imposition of his 
hands and prayer, Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Lavv^, late of 
Jesus College in the University of Oxford, and a Presbyter of 
the Church of England, for the Epis'topal of re.'' Of this de- 
claration, by which thousands have been deceived, Dr. Coke was 
the author, and hence the question arises, was he a man whose 
testirnony in this matter can be relied upon without doubt?' 

This is a proper subject of inquiry, and one about which it is 
absolutely necessary for us to be satisfied, before we can justly 
be called upon to give our assent to the above mentioned declar- 
ation. Now^ in answer to the question I shall present the fol> 
lowing facts, and leave the reader to form his own estimate of 
the Doctor's character.. 

In his sermon at the ordination of Mr. Asbury, ''he began hi^ 
defence by the most severe censures on the Church of England, '| 
and yet in a letter to Mr. Wesley, he declared that "he would 
as soon commit adultery as to preach agaiust the Church." • 

For the use of the Methodists in this country, he wrote the fol- 
lowing which is published in some of the older books of Disci- ■ 
pline, — "We are thoroughly convinced th^at the Church of Eng- 
land, to which w^e have been' united, is deficient in several of the 
most important parts of christian discipline, and that (a few min- 
isters and members excepted) it has lost the life and pow^r of 



1 



116 



THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 



f- 



l 



t 



religion. We are not ignorant of the spirit and designs it has 
ever discovered in Europe of rising to pre-eminence and world- 
ly dignity hy virtue of a national establishment, and by the most 
servile devotion to the will of temporal governors; and we fear 
the same spirit will lead the same Church in these United States, 
(though altered ill Us name,) to similar designs and attempts." 
And yet this same Dr. Coke, not only applied for admission into 
•*this same Church in these U. S.," but in a letter ro Mr. Wil- 
berforce written in 1790, about the same time with the above, he 
said ''There is one point I feel desirous of touching upon, as- 
sured that your candor v/ill excuse my further intrusion on your 
patience. Some have said (from the steps I was unavoidably 
necessiated to take on the continent of America) that I would, if 
possible, separate the whole Methodist connection in England 
from the established Church. I do assure you, sir, upon the hon- 
or of a gentleman, and (which is in my view, and also lam con- 
fident, in yours, absolutely greater,) on the solemn word of a 
christian, that the assertion is utterly false. I not only wish for 
no such thing, but would oppose a separation from the establish' 
ment with my utmost influence, even if that, or a division of the 
connection was the unavoidable alternative." So much for the 
Doctor's consistency. 

IX. Now for the fact that he claimed a number of things 
Avhich did not really belong to him. From the introduction to 
' Dr. Adam Clark's Commentary we learn, that he claimed to be 
the author of Dodd's Commentary, ^vhich he was not. From the 
"Life of Mr. Samuel Drew," we learn that he employed Mr. 
Drew for a pecuniary compensation, to write for him, and that 
"of the following works bearing the name of Thomas Coke, L. 
L. D., Mr. Drew was virtually and principally the author:" 

"A Commentary on the New Testament," 2 vol. 4 to. 1807. 
"The Recent Occurrences of Europe, oonsidered in relation to 
Prophecies fulfilled and unfulfilled," I80S. 

"A History of the West Indies^Natural, Civil and Ecclesias- 
tical, with an account of the Missions instituted in those Islands," 
3 vol., 1803 to 1811. " Six Letters ir- reply to the Rev. Melville 



i^ 



1 



DEFENDED. 



117 



Horn, in defence of the Doctrines of Justification by faith, and the 
Witness of the Spirit, 1810. 

*^ The Cottager's Bible, containing a short Exposition and Prac- 
tical Reflections on each chapter." 4 vol. 1710. See Life of Sam- 
uel Drew, by his Son, p. 327. So much for the Doctor's honesty. 

X. Now for Dr. Whitehead's description of his character. 
Expressing his regret that Mr. Fletcher did not accept Mr. Wes- 
ley's proposal to appoint him his successor. Dr. Whitehead re- 
marks, " He," Mr. Fletcher, " would have done much good while 
he lived, and have prevented many of the evils which have since 
taken place. He would at least have prevented the influence 
which a person" (Dr. Coke named in the Index) " some years af- 
terwards acquired in the connexion, with talents very inferior to 
most of the preachers; who has been the chief means of introdu- 
cing innovations into the original plan of Metkodiim, which have 
already produced much mischief, and threaten much more in the 
issue ; and whose rash and inconsistent conduct, on several occa- 
sions, has brought the whole body of preachers into disgrace, 
and embarrassed them with many difficulties," vol. 2. p. 356. 
So much for the Doctor's general reputation. 

XI. Now for his management with Mr. Wesley and his in- 
jfiuence over him. 

''In thelatter end of the summer preceding Mr. Wesley's death, 
a certain person" (Dr. Coke named in the Index) "who had long 
been trying various schemes to acquire a superior influence over 
both preachers and people, endeavored to persuade Mr. Wesley, 
that if he disposed of his literary property by his will only, his 
next of kin would claim it ; that a deed of assignment was rieces- 
sary to prevent their claims. Mr. Wesley denied that this would 
be the case, and resisted the proposition of making a deed of as- 
signment. Being, however, frequently worried on the occasion, 
he at length, in company with this same person, applied to his 
confidential solicitor on the question ; who told him that his liter- 
ary property was personal estate, his will was a competent instru- 
ment to convey, and that no Deed of assignment was necessary. 
The party who wished for a Deed of assignment that might an- 



/ 



i 



118 



THE EPISCOPAL CHrUCH 



I 



V 



8wer his purpose, was not discouraged by this response, but af* 
terwards wrote to the same Solicitor, for his further opinion on 
the subject, and received the same answer in writing. Finding 
Mr. Wesley's Solicitor not of an accommodating disposition, . 
f whose integrity must be sacri:&ced, he applied to another, a total 
stranger to the methodist economy, and therefore wrote under 
his direction. A deed of assignment was drav/n up to answer 
•the purpose intended. Things being thus prepared, the old gen- 
tleman was carried privately to a friend's house, to execute this 
deed, five months before he died; a tim.-e when his weakness was 
so great, we m.ay venture to say, he could not sit five m^inutes to 
hear any thing read, erpecially in the forms of law, v/ithout fal- 
ling into a doze; so that there is not the least probability that 
Mr. Wesley knew the contents of the deed he executed, or had 
any suspicion of its tendency or of the design of its author. It 
is very certain that the body of the preachers were ignorant of 
this scandalous transaction, in which an advantage Vv'as taken of 
asre and infirmities, by one or two individuas, to gain the man- 
agement of a large and increasing annual revenue to serve the 
purposes of their own ambition." Vol. 2. p. 463. So much for 
the Doctor's management with Mr, Wesley. 

XII. Now, although this mass of strange and extraordinary 
facts, is calculated in some respects to confuse the mind, and to 
confirm the declaration of the Preacher quoted by Dr. Whitehead, 
who called this "Methodist Episcopacy a hedge podge of incon- 
sistencies," still I think, the following conclusions must be drawn: 

1st That however much Mr. Wesley may have departed 
from the principles and practice of his former life, still he never 
intended that the Methodists in this country should separate en- 
tirely from the Church. 

2nd. That although he viaij have assum.ed the Episcopal of- 
fice and ordained Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey, and authorized 
them to administer the sacraments, still he never intended to be 
understood as having pretended to ordain Dr. Coke, but only to ap- 
point him a Superintendent and a joint Superintendent with Mr. 
Asbury, and both under him as the " Father of the family." 



DEFENDED. 119 

3rd. That if he was really convinced that *' Bishop and Pes- 
byter was the same order," then he could not have intended to 
ordain Dr. Coke, who according to this theory, was already a 
Bishop, and consequently his justification on this ground was 
intended to apply to the case of Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey. ' 

4th. That whatever may have been his convictions as to Bish- 
op and Preshyter^ still in his letter to Mr. Asbury he most pos- 
itively denied the identity of Bishop and ^apcrintendent, 

5ih. That the confessions of Dr. Coke are abundantly sufFi- 
<iient to show that, whatever may have been his pretensions 
-among the Methodists, still he never really believed that he v\ras 
a validly consecrated Bishop in the Church of God. 

6th. That the character of Dr. Coke was such as to lead us 
to believe, not only that he had *^ exceeded the authority given 
liim by Mr. Wesley," as he expressly acknowledged, but that he 
claimed to be more than Mr.. Wesley ever intended, — and final- 
ly, whatever may be our convictions as to the origin and claims 
of Methodist Episcopacy, still it is proved beyond all contradic- 
tion that there is no good and sujjicieiit reason to believe that Mr.. 
Wesley ever intended to consecrate Dr. Coke a Bishop. Quod 
€rat demonstrandum. 



Dear Sir — I know not how it would be possible for me to make 
to you a fairer proposition, than that you should communicate 
the substance of your Lectures against the Church, so as to give 
me the opportunity of examining the arguments which you em- 
plo3'ed. Having delivered those Lectures in public, I should 
naturally suppose, that you were careful not to make any asser- 
tions which you could not substantiate; and your compliance 
with my proposition, would not only enable you to give them a 
more permanent and lasting form, but you could fortify your ar- 
guments by any replies which you might choose to make to my 
objections. However as you have been pleased to decline that 
proposition, and to turn me over to Dr. Bangs, I intend in this 
letter to examine some of the prominent arguments of his book; 
and those who heard your Lectures can judge whether his argu- 
ments are in any respect the same as those, which were employed 
by you. 

L Dr. Bangs informs us that " the Methodist Ep. Church was 
organized before the Protestant Episcopal Church had an exis- 
tence," (p. 26.) A Methodist writer somewhat earlier than Dr. 
Bangs, has made a discovery still greater than this; for, after 
speaking of the Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Dutch Ee- 
formed and Quakers as organized societies in Hurajje before the 
Revolution, and intimating that they were consequently dissolv- 
ed in this country by that event, he then comes to the sage con- 
clusion, that the Methodist E. Church not only preceded the 
Episcopal, but was '^ the first that was organized on the American 
continent. ""^"^ All this is said for the purpose of rejecting, with 
becoming indignation, the charge that the Methodists have sep- 
arated from the Church; and no doubt it has quieted the mind 
of many a brother whose conscience has been troubled by the 
sin of schism. But what must a man think of the intellic^ence 

Ris-e and Progress of the Methodist Church, p. Sl4, 



DEFENDED. 121 

of his readers who will venture upon such assertions as these? 
What would be thought of the Lawyer who should attempt to 
wrest from some of our Churches the property which was given 
to them before the Revolution, on the ground that that event and 
the changes consequent in their organization, had destroyed their 
identity? What m-'ist we think of the Divine who betrays such 
an utter ignorance of the true nature of the Christian Church, 
as to imagine that it can be so easily destroyed? 

'* Where was your church before the consecration of Bishop 
Seabury or Bibhop White, or before the American Eevolution?" 
How very like the question which was sometimes addressed to 
the Eeformers— '' V/here was your church before Cranmer?^' 
But the Reformers found no difficulty in answering the question. 
Nay, they were glad of the opportunity not only of pointing to 
the time when the Church existed in England entirel}^ free from 
papal corruptions, but of proving that the Reformation was no 
more the birth day of the Church than it was the creation of the 
jjjivorld. And so we answer to all such miserable and "ad cap- 
tandam" arguments, and tell you that you might as well talk 
about the discovery of the American continent at the time of the 
Revolution, as to talk about the establishment of the Church in 
this country then. 

Previous to the Revolution, the Church in this country was un- 
der the Episcopal supervision of the Bishop of London; but im- 
mediately after that event, arrangements were made for procur- 
ing an independent episcopate, and for that purpose the Diocese 
of Connecticut had organized and elected the Rev, Samuel Sea- 
bury, D. D. their Bishop, who was consecrated in Scotland on the 
14th of November 1784 — more than a month before the organ- 
ization of a Methodist Episcopal Church at Baltimore. But 
enough upon such a point as this. 

IT. The next argument of Dr. Bangs which I shall notice, is 
this, " The terms Bishop and Frcshyler or Elder ^ signified in the 
'primilive Churchy the same order of minister s^"^^ p. 38. This posi- 
tion lies at the foundation of his work; from it he draws liis oth- 
er conclusions on the right of ordination; by it he defends Mr* 



122 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

Wesley, and attempts to overthrow the present position of the 
Episcopal Church; and m his complete success in establishing 
this position, he seems to glory as with the triumphs of victory. 
Having laid down this position, the author enters upon a long and 
learned argument to prove it; examining the etymology of the 
word " Bishm ;''^ taking up those passages of Scripture in which it 
is used synonomously with Presbyter or Elder ; quoting from Cle- 
mens Romanus, Polycarp, Irenseus, Cyprian and Jerome, among 
the ancients — from Cranm.er, Cox, Mann, Stillingleet, Bishop 
White and others among the moderns, — ^and he then concludes oii 
the 87th page, that "he shall here rest the question respecting 
the identity of Bishops and Elders or Presbyters, having fully 
sustained his position 

1st, From the Scriptures, 

2nd, From the Primitive Fathers, 

•3rd, From the most respectable ecclesiastical writers 'm 
in the English Church, 

4th, From the testimiony of Bichop White," &c. 
' Nov/ the truth is, the learned Doctor might have spared him» 
self the trouble of so long an argument in proof of his position; 
for if he had said at once, that every Episcopal writer without 
exception, and every other individual who knows any thing at all 
about the Scriptures or the Primitive Church, all admit his fun- 
damental position, and have never presumed to question it, then, 
certainly, he would have hit the thing exactly. For strange as 
it may seem to the reader who is unacquainted with the real ques- 
tion at issue, and the grounds of the Episcopal Church, this is so 
-—all admit the Doctor^s fundamental position. What says Mr. . 
Chapman ? ^' We attach no importance whatever, to mere names, 
it is the office and the duties appertaining to that office about 
%yhich we are alone solicitious. At the very time when accord- 
ing to the Scriptures, Bishop and Presbyter were convertible 
terms, and designated the same individual minister, there exis- 
ted the lower order of deacons and the higher order of Apostles; 
and it is for this three fold ministry that we contend, and not for 
the names by which it was at any time distinguished. If it could 



DEFENDED. 123 

be shown that Apostles were not superior to the then second or* 
der of bishops or presbyters, there would indeed be some foun* 
•dation for the argument, but their superiority being universally 
■acknowledged, it falls lo the ground, being only calculated to 
gratify the subtle disputant on the one hand, and to secure the 
credulous proselyte on the other." 

*' While we accede, therefore, to this interchangeable use of 
the words, bishop and presbyter, in the Scriptures., we fearlessly 
and confidently assert, that it ended with the Apostolic age, and 
was not afterwards employed by the primitive christians. 

Not only does Eusebius, the historian say, ^' Those very person3 
were called Aposiles^ whom by usage of speech the Church now 
€aUs bishops,'' — but the celebrated Theodoret, has furnished us 
with the following just solution of this merely apparent difficulty 
— *'The same persons were anciently called presbyters and bish- 
ops, and those now called bishops were called Apostles ; but in 
process of time, the name of Apostle was left for those who were 
truly Apostles^ and the name of bishop was restrained to those 
who w^ere actually called Apostles; thus Epaphroditus v\^as the 
Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretans and Timothy of 
the Asiatics." 

**A more triumphant vindication of Episcopacy cannot be im» 
alined. They v/ho succeeded to the apostolic office., out of rev- 
erence to such of their predecessors as were immiediately called 
by Christ, appear to have relinquished to them the more digni- 
fied title of Apostle, and to have appropriated to themselves the 
humbler name of Bishop, originally bestowed upon the second 
order of the ministry in common with that of Presbyter; but 
thenceforward exclusively attached to the first and never after- 
wards resumed by the second. The change was only in name, 
the two ofiices, or orders, remained as separate and distiinjt as 
they were before. It was precisely as if by the common consent 
of the American people, sprin^^-ing fi'om gratitude for the servi- 
ces and veneration for the memory of Washington, it should be 
determined for the future to appropriate to him alone, the title of 
President, and to all his successors in the presidential ojicc crea-* 



124 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

ted by the Constitution, what is now regarded as the less digni- 
fied name of Governor. It would not abstract one iota from the 
constitutional privileges and powers attached to the office itself. 
Its incumbent would still superintend and govern as he now su- 
perintends and governs; and he would be considered the merest 
triiier, who should have the folly to assert, that a change of 
names had produced a material change in official rank and au- 
thority." (Chapman's Sermons, pp. 77 — 78.) 

Here, then. Dr. Bangs might have found a complete answer to 
all the conclusions drawn by him from the interchangeable use 
in the Scriptures, of the names Bishop and Presbyter, and not 
only here, but in every work on the subject of Episcopacy, by the 
writers of the Church, this fact is allowed, and fully explained to 
have no connection whatever with the true question at issue. 

*'In support of this view of the subject," says Dr. Bangs, *' we 
refer the reader to Acts xx, 17, 23, where St. Paul addresses 
himself to the Episkopoi, which are called in our translation el- 
ders in verse 17, and overseers [Bishops] in verse 20, a proof this, 
that these men had the oversight of the church at that time, and 
that there were a plurality of them in the city of Ephesus. They 
could not, therefore, have been diocesan Bishops, unless we ab- 
surdly suppose that there were several dioceses in one city. 
Hence it follows most conclusively, that those denominated EI- 
ders or Preshyfers were the same as those denominated Bish- 
ops,'' p. 39. 

Now, all this is very true- — these men whom the Apostle as- 
sembled were indeed all elders oxpreshijtcrs or hi shops — they were 
all connected with the Church in the large city of Ephesus, and 
consequently Avere not diocesan Bishops in the present sense; but 
does all this prove that there was no order in the ministry supe- 
rior to them, — that they were not subject to some kind of a dio- 
cesan bishop? for what was the apostle himself who had assem- 
bled them together and given them his charge, and what was 
Timothy who v/as afterwards placed over them as their Apostle, or 
as we should now say, their bishop ? In this very passage then, 
if the learned Doctor had been lookinsr for thino-s instead of 



DEFENDED. 125 

fiames^ he might have found two orders in the christian ministry 
entirely separate and distinct from each other in authority; and 
then if he had turned back to Acts 6, he might have found an- 
other order entirely distinct from either of these two, and there 
denominated deacons. What would we think of the man who 
should gravely attempt to prove that all the Presidents in the 
United States held the same office because thej^ all possess the 
same general name; or that all the Judges in the county belong 
to the same rank and possess the same authority for a similar 
reason ? 

Can the Doctor prove that the higher office held at first by the 
twelve Apostles, and which all must acknowledge was entirely 
distinct from either or any of the others — can he prove that this 
office was not continued in the christian church and was not 
intended to be continued so long as the Church shall exist? 
** That's the question." Not a question of names, but a ques- 
tion relating to one of the most important /ac/^^ which can occu- 
py the attention of the christian, especially at the present time, 
when so many are striving to rend into pieces the seamless gar- 
ment of Christ. Episcopalians believe, — and a great majority 
of the christian church are with us in this belief, and the whole 
christian world, as we think, for fifteen centuries — that the office 
held by the Apostles has been continued and is possessed by those 
whom we now call bishops, and for this faith we are ready to 
give a reason to every man that asketh, "with meekness and 
fear." Do yoa tell us that this is mere assumption — a lordl}^ and 
arrogant claim ? As well might you tell the christian v/ho be- 
lieves that he has been brought out of darkness into God's mar- 
vellous light, that £}'om a stranger and an outcast he has been 
made a fellow-citizen with the saints and of the household of 
God, that it is all assaraption,a lordly and an arrogant claim, — 
for he has the sure word of God for the foundation of his faith, 
and so have toe We point you to the Saviour's promise, when 
that office was created and its ministers commissioned — "ivD, / 
am with you olway even to the end of the world^'''' and we tell you 
that we find in tiiis promise a pledge of perpetuity which no sin- 



126 THE EPISCOPAL CHUECH 

cere believer is able to gainsay, and which evidently refers, IK)I 
to the Apostles as individuals, as mere men, but as officers in the 
christian church who were to live by themselves and their sue* 
cessors until the end of the world.. We tell you, too, that the 
commission vrliich was bestowed upon the Apostles, conferred 
the poAver^ and consequently enjoined the dtUty on their part, of 
bestowing the same commission upon others,, for the Saviour 
said, '' as my Father hath sent rue. even sOySend lyouy' and when- 
you look at this declaration in connection with the very act m 
v/hich the Saviour was then engaged, you must perceive that it 
eould import nothing less than this — as my Father hath sent mis 
with power and authority to commission you, ecen so send I you^ 
with power and authority to commission others. Here all boast- 
ing is excluded. The Saviour himself, not presuming to take 
this office, but acting as one sent and holding a commission, and 
60 the Apostles likevrise and their successors after them, and all 
that God alone may be glorified as the only source of ministerial 
authority and pov;er.. 

But more than this^ we point you to the divinely recorded fact 
that this Oihce was continued; that one of the first acts of the- 
Apostles after the Savior's Ascension was to com.mission Matthi- 
as, by elevating him from the inferior rank of the seventy to that 
of an Apostle ; — and. although to get rid of the difficulties in thia 
case, you may imagine with Dr. Bangs and a few others, that 
the x^postles here transcended their authority', and that to reprove 
them for it, the Savior afterwards appointed St. Paul, yet v/e re- 
ply to you that this is an unfounded suggestion, a species of in- 
fidelity, which denies the plenary inspiration of the Apostles, and 
which allows their most solemn acts to 1^ received or rejected 
according to the fancies of men. And we tellyou moreover that 
we have much m.ore reason to believe that the immediate appoint- 
ment of St. Paul to the same office, was rather intended to teach- 
them that their number should not be confined to twelve, as they 
might perhaps ha^ve supposed, but that they should go on in the 
appointment of others as the Church increased. At all events 
we find that so far from, regarding the appointment of St,. Paul 



BEFEN^ED.. 127 

as a reproof, they did go on in the appointment of others, to the. 
same rank and Apostleship. Such were Barnabas and Sylva- 
miSy Timothy and Epaphroditus,, Titus and James the Just, all 
not only called Apostles but exercising the peculiar duties of that 
office ; and to so many had the number increased, that in the year 
98, when the E^evelations of St.. John were written, some were 
^^ false A'postles^^^ men who pretended to hold this office without 
authorit}^ — a fact which not only proves that the office was con- 
tinued, but that something more was necessary to entitle a marvs 
to it than his ovv^n fancy or unfounded assertions. 

And although from the necessities of the case, these Apostles^ 
had no distinct charge or settled Dioceses at first, as the Chris- 
tians theniselv-es had no established houses of worship or settled" 
habitations, 3'^et we fmd that these external regulations were all 
attended to, long before the close of the Apostolic age,. as Tim.o- 
thy became settled over the Churches of Ephesus, Titus over 
those- of Crete, James over those of Jerusalem, and Epaphroditus- 
over those of Phiiippi. All these are incontestible proofs from. 
the ' Scriptures,, that the Apostolic office was continued in the 
Church — and when we rememvber that from the. very nature of' 
the case no detailed account of its organization could be expected 
Jn the Apostolic v/ritings as well from their historical brevity as 
from the fact that the}-^ were all addressed to the members of the- 
Church with whom its organization must have been familiar, the- 
evidence which is here aiibrded is more than, sufficient to satisfy 
an ingenuous mind.. 

But as it is not my intention to enter into an}^ extended argu- 
ment on this subject, but only to notice the prominent objections 
of Dr. Bangs, and incidentally to throw out suggestions which 
may lead the reader to investigate the treatises on the subject,.! 
must now pass on to another point. 

IIL "Having proved that Bishops and Presbyters were the 
same order of ministers in the primitive church," says the learn- 
ed Doctor, " it remains for us to inquire into the powers possessed 
by them;" and then kc proceeds to show that they possessed the 
fower of Qrdination, 



128 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

1st, From Acts 13: 1—3. 

2nd, From I Timothy. 4: 4. 

3rd, From the example of the Church at Alexandria. 
Now, before examining the instances here given of Presbyter 
ordination, as the Doctor supposes, I will briefly state the opin- 
ion of Episcopalians upon this subject, and this tcithout a single 
exception among our Clergy, so far as I am acquainted. 

All believe that the commission to ordain others was given to 
the Apostles alone, and that they alone, and their successors in 
that office in the primitive church exercised the right ; that no in- 
instance of Presbyter ordination can be found in the Scriptures — 
that no atlempl of the kind was ever made before the third centu- 
ry; that every such ordination was then declared null and void, 
andthat on this subject up to the time of the Eeformation, there 
is an unbroken chain of testimony. Thus, in 324 the Council of 
all the Egyptian bishops assembled at Alexandria under Hosius, 
declared null and void the ordinations performed by CoUuthus, 
a presbyter of Alexandria, who had separated from his bishop and 
pretended to act as a bishop himself." (Athanasius t. 1st. p. 193.) 
Thus, in the first Council of Seville, so decided was the opinion 
of the church and so great was the danger felt to be, of aiiy de- 
parture from the established mode of ordaining, that the ordina- 
tions performed by the bishop of Agaba were declared null, be- 
cause an assisting Presbyter was accustomed to read the prayer of 
ordination on account of the bishop's blindness, who, however, laid 
his hands on those who were to be ordained. Thus Jerome in 
the 4th century, a Presbyter, who went farther than any other 
ancient writer whatever, in identifying the ofQces of the Bishop 
or Apostle and Presb3'ter, and who is sometimes quoted as au- 
thority for ministerial parity, yet in his utmjost zeal to elevate the 
office of presbyter, he expressly acknowldges to the former the 
sole prerogative of ordination — "What does a Bishop do," says 
he, "which a Presbyter may not do, excej)iing ordination. ""^^ 
These are only a few instances of the historical facts bearing- 

^ ^^e^ Pcihner on ^h;^ Chir-Hi, vol. g, p iAiT^'^^ 
C 1 u! p i I'j ' s F r i ni I ; 1 v e C h u r t h ^ p 2 00 



DEFENDED. 129 

npon this subject; and Episcopalians, therefore, are all united m 
their belief as to the proper and authoi'ized minuter of ordtnation — 
that this right belongs to the highest order, the bishop now, sincQ 
the change merely in name, the Apostle then, in the primitive 
church. 

At the same time there are some who think, perhaps, that or* 
dinations performed by Presbyters mny be valid in cases of abso- 
lute necessity ; there are some who think that it is unnecessary 
for us to athrm positively, that ordinations performed bv Presby- 
ters are really inoaUd^ but by far the greater number believer 
that on this subject as well as on others, we should fearlessly de- 
clare the truth, as we believe it to be revealed, let the consequen- 
ces be what they may, whether men will hear or whether they 
will forbear. 

Now there is no dispute as to the fact that the Apostles and 
their successors held and exercised the right of ordination. Thus 
Paul and Barnabas ordained presbyters in every Church. Tim- 
othy and Titus were left at Ephesus and Crete to set things in 
order and to oKiain presbyters in every church. The seven dea- 
cons were elected by the people, but ordained by the Apostles* 
Here, then, all are agreed, and the only question to be consider- 
ed is, did the presbyters or elders excercise the same right ? No 
one has ever pretended that any express authority was given to 
them for that purpose as it was given to the Apostles, but did 
they exercise it ? Dr. Bangs says they did; and appeals, 

1st, To Acts 13 ; 1 — 8. " Now there were in the Church that 
was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas and 
Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Man- 
aen which had been brought up with Herod the tetiarch, and 
Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost 
said, separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I 
have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and 
laid their hands on thi-ni, they sent them away." On this pas- 
sage Dr. Bangs remarks as follows : — " From the whole, thcrej ore, 
I conclude that St. Paul received his credentials as an accredited 
minister in this presbyterial College at Antioch, from the hand» 

9 



im 



THE EriSCOPAL CHUItCH 



of men over whom he afterwards exercised a spiritual jirrisdtc»* 
tion ; and therefore a body of elders, or of " prophets and teach- 
ers/' may impart authority to an equal to became their superior 
in office. This^- titer ef ore ^ as I have before remarked^ is so far 
from being an unusual thing, that it occurred, as it seems,.in the- 
present case, at the very foundation of the christian Church., 
But the fact more especially established in the passage before U3^ 
is, that the ordination was originally in the body of Presbyters,, 
else these usurped that which did not belong to them." 

Now, in answer to all this sage reasoning and multiplication 
of "therefores," we say that the learned Doctor ought to hava- 
proved, 1st. That the transaction here recorded was an ordina* 
tion; 2nd, That the ordainers were mere Presbyters ; 3rd, That 
St. Paul w^as not already an Apostle, and that an Apostle might 
be r(?-ordained by a company of inferior officers. 

But neither of these things can be proved; for 1st, The tran- 
saction was not an ordination, as the reader has seen in my pre-- 
vious letter v/as the opinion of Mr. Wesley, and as every indi-^ 
vidual may see who will open his Bible and read 'both the 13th» 
and 14th chapters together, — he will there find that Paul and Bar- 
nabas went on a special mission tO' various places, and at the con- 
clusion of the narrative it is said, "and after they had passed^ 
through Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia; and when tkej haU 
preached the Vv^ord in Perga, they went down into Attalia; and 
tlience sailed to Antioch^from whence they had been recommended tc^ 
the grace of God^ for the work wich they fulfilled^ Here, then,. 
we find that the work of the ministry for which they had beeii 
ordained according to Dr. Bangs, but " for which they had beer^ 
recommended to the grace of God,'^ according to the inspired 
penman, was fulfilled. 

The case is so plain that even Dr. Barnes, m his commentary 
on the passage remarks, that, '' it was a temporary designation^ 
)not a 'permanent office^) to a missionary enterprise in extending 
the Gospel, especially through iVsia Minor and* the adjacent re- 
gions, and accordingly, Vv^hen they had travelled through Seleu- 
eia, &c., they returned to Antioch, having fulfilled the work to 



which they v/ere separated." But 21y, ^* prophets and teachers.^* 
might be Apostles, for certainly they, were both prophets and tea- 
chers, as our Saviour himself was called, and no reason whatev- 
er can be given for limiting the expression to mere presbyters* 
Hence, therefore, ailov^dng it to have been an ordination, it can- 
not be proved to have been a Presbyter ordmation. 

But Sly, The idea that St. Paul was here ordained or conse- 
crated, is entirely excluded by the fact, not only that he had then 
been an Apostle for a period not less than 17 years according to^ 
the most accurate computations, but that he himself specifies his 
own case, as peculiar and different from that of others who were 
made Apostles after the Saviour's ascension, inasmuch as he be- 
came an Apostle, ''not of men^ nor hy men,'' and this strong ex- 
pression, ''not of men nor hy men," utterly forbids the thought 
oi any human agency whatever in his particular case; and this 
fact that the Apostle so often speaks of his case as peculiar and 
distinct from others, is an evidence of the ordinary necessity of 
Bome external act of ordination. . 

But 21y, Dr. Bangs appeals, to 1st Timothy 1 ; 4, where St. 
Paul says to Timothy, "neglect not the gift that is in thee, which 
was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery." On this passage the Doctor remarks, *' allowing 
what our opponents contend for, that Timothy was an Apostle or 
Bishop in their sense of the term, then it would follow that these 
presbyters conferred orders upon one vv^ho was superior to them- 
selves—the same as Mr. Wesley and those elders associated with 
him^ conferred the office of Superintedent or Bishop— for I con* 
tend not about names — upon Dr. Coke." p. 94. 

Most graceful announcenlent, from a man ^vhose whole book ia 
founded upon the Scripture use of the names presbyter and bish- 
op,, as synonimous, and who in this very passage confounds the 
ecclesiastical name of Bishop, wu*th the ordinary name of Super- 
intendent ! Well, indeed, might the learned Doctor refuse to con- 
tend about the latter names \ But let us examine the passage. 

Now, if the casual reader takes it for granted, without exam- 



132 



THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 



ination, that the word "presbyter" in this passage, means a com* 
pany of ministerial ■presbyters^ then the passage will be an evi- 
dence to him that presbyters had something to do with the ordi- 
nation of Timothy; but if he will take his Greek Testament and 
Lexicon, and study the subject, by looking at the meaning of 
the word and the various places where it is used, then he will 
find that "presbytery'' may have a \er\ dilTerent rendering; or 
if he will examine ihe best commentators upon the passage, such 
as Calvin, Grotius and ilcKnight among the dissenters, then he 
w'ill find, that the word may mean a Council of any elderly per- 
sons, Apostles as well as presbyters, or it many mean the ojjice c( 
the presbyterate^ and does not refer in this case at all to the or* 
dainers. But if he eschews Greek and Commentators, and wish- 
es to understand the matter by himself and by reading the ver- 
nacular, then he may turn to the II Timothy, 1; 6, where it is 
said, " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the 
gift of God, which is in thee, by the piittuig on of my Jiands]^^ 
and here he will find that St. Paul the Apostle was the principal 
and ejficient ordainer of Timothy; that he even presum.es to say 
that this "gift of God" was conferred ^*hy the laying on of his 
hands ;" that his language is exclusive of all others as engaged 
v/ith him. in actually bestowing the gift, and consequently that 
if it was done vnlh the laying on of the hands of presbyters, then 
they w^ere only present and assisting as is frequently the case 
now", without any body's dreaming that they are the ordainerSy 
Who does not know that in cases of ordinations now, in the Epis- 
copal Church, presbyters are present, laying on their hands 2i^ilh 
the bishop, not as conveying authority, but as assisting, giving 
assent, and increasing the solemnity? If the reader desires a 
more critical and exigetical examination of this point, he is re- 
spectfully referred to the following works: — "Episcopacy tested 
by Scripture," " Cook's Essay on the invalidity of Presbyterian 
ordination," " Chapin's Primitive Church," occ. 

But enou2fh has been said to prove that this case, referred to 
by Dr. Bangs, is not a case of Presbyterian ordination; that Tim- 



DEFENDED. 133 

•thy was not ordained hy presb3ners at all, nor with presbyters 
alone, — and consequently that Mr. Wesley's ordination of Dr. 
Coke has foand no support here. 

Now, the two cases of pretended Presbyter ordination which 
we have considered, and by which Dr. Bangs endeavors to sup- 
port his theory, amm the only cases recoPv^ed in the script ures 
WHICH ARE EA^ER BROUGHT TO PROVE THE POINT — the Only instan- 
ces which look at ail like any thing of the kind, — and all who 
place their dependence upon this kind of ordination, are com- 
pelled to rest theircause, so far as Scripture is concerned, wpon 
these two instances alone. 

What must reasoning and reasonable men, and especially 
christians vv-ho desire to build upon the Bible— what must they 
isay of a cause which has no better foundation than this! How 
can any individual v/ith a knowledge of these facts, and who sin- 
cerely intends to make the Scriptures the only rule of faith and 
practice — how can he feel secure and safe, in receiving the sacra- 
ments at the hands of those, who, to say the least, have no indis- 
putable bible authority to administer them — who have never been 
admitted to the christian ministry by any other authority than 
the doubtful one of preshyler ordination! Let no one be angry 
with me for asking this question — and if any are inclined to be 
so, let them consider whether it is not the probing of the con- 
science, which has excited them, and whether, therefore, it is 
not their duty as christians, prayerfully to investigate the subject 
as one of practical interest and importance to their souls. 

But to Dr. Bangs. "Having thus adduced Scripture authori- 
ty in favor of our position," says the Doctor, "let us novv^ enquire 
%vhether the practice of subsequent periods of the Church corrob- 
crates ikct interpretation we have given of these Scriptures. In 
respect to ordination itself, there is but little said in the writings 
of the primitive fathers; yet that little, plainly proves that it was 
done by presbyters." Alas! what must the reader think of this 
assertion, who is acquainted with the writings of the primitive 
fathers ? But we go on — " Indeed there was no need of asserting 
in so many words, that presbyters did ordain others, because a« 



134 THE EPISCOPAL CHtTRCH 

iishops andpreshyters were of the same order, Avhat ever was done 
by one in virtue <5f his ecclesiastical order, was done by the other, 
—so that if bishops administered ordination, the presbyters did 
the same; and as this was generally understood as of right be 
longing to them, it was quite unnecessary to mention it as if it 
were a matter of doubtful disputation. However we have some 
testimonies even to this point," 

Here let us breathe a moment, for such kind of reasoning at 
this, by a grave divine, puts one quite out of breath. 

Bishops and presbyters, as the reader has seen, were indeed 
the. same order, until, as Theodoret informs us, theirs/ order of 
the ministry who were originally called Apostles, assumed the 
name of bishops out of respect to the Apostles ; then and after 
the apostolic age, they were quite a different order. But there 
is much more upon this point than the passage from Theodoret. 
Thus, St. Hilary in the 3d century says, "" Those who are now 
call-ed Bishops, were originally called Apostles; but the holy 
Apostles being dead, those who were ordained after them to 
GOVERN the c/mrc/ie5-, thought it not decent to assume to them- 
selves the name of Apostles, but dividing the names bishop and 
presbyter, they left to. the presbytery the name of presbyters, and 
they themselves were called Bishops." 

Now we are prepared to go on, remembering that it is not 
enough for the learned Doctor to prove that Bishops ordained, but 
he must show that presbyters did so, and the testimony ought to 
be clear upon such a point as this. What is it? 

Thus s'diiih Fir mniian^ — * All power and grace is constituted 
in the church where seniors preside, who have the power of bap- 
tizing", confirming and ordaining.^ "What these seniors were 
may be seen from a parallel passage in Tertullian, where he says 
that, "In the ecclesiastical courts approved elders preside, not 
distinguished for their opulence, but worth of character." 

"But the passage more in point than any other, is that from 
Eutychius, patriarch of Alezandria, who expressly affirms tha't 
the twelve presbyters, constituted by Mark, upon the vacancy 



DEFENDED. 1S5 

^f tTie see, did rlioose out of their number, one, to be head over 
the rest, and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him and 
made him Patriarch-," 

These are the Doctor's testimonies and all that he has pretend^ 
^d to bring from ancient authors, and although to all these we 
'might briefly reply, that they do not prove a single instance of 
|rresbyter ordination — the seniors and elders both in Firmillian 
and Tertullian, referring as vvell to bishops as presbyters, and the 
presbyters in Alexandria making one of their number a patriarch, 
by no means implying absolutely that they ordained him to any 
office in the ministry — but as these instances have been undoubt- 
edly collected from Miller^s Letters, I will transcribe a short por- 
tion of Dr. Bowmen's reply to them, — and the reader can judge 
how it is that assertions are made on this subject which have been 
a thousand times refuted, I begin with Dr. Bowden's sixth let- 
ter addressed to Miller, 

*'In my last, I finished a pretty long list of testimonies from 
the writings of St. Cyprian, and proved, I am persuaded, beyond 
the possibility of refutation, that he and all his contemporaries 
did believe and assert the divine institution of Episcopacy, I 
shall now close the evidence from the Cyprianic period, by con- 
sidering your quotation from Firmillian, bishop of Caesarea, In 
an epistle addressed to Cyprian, he thus speaks; * But the other 
heretics also, if they separate from the Church, can have no pow- 
er or grace, since all power and grace are placed in the Church, 
where Elders preside, in whom is vested the power of baptizing, 
of imposition of hands, and ordination.' You add, * this passage 
needs no comment. It not only represents the right to baptize 
and the right to ordain as going together, but it also expressly as- 
cribes both to the Eiders v/ho preside in the churches.' 

*This needs no comment!' Concise enough, to be sure! But 
there are some of your readers who Vv^ill, I hope, venture to think 
for themselves. To such I address the following observations: 
1st. Firmillian v/as a very distinguished bishop, and contem- 
porary with Cyprian, from whose works we have extracted such 
a body of evidence, that bishops in his day, were an order supe- 



136 



THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 



tior to presbyters, as cannot possibly be controlled. 2nd. Fir* 
millian appears to have been perfectly of the same mind with 
Cyprian, in all matters relating to the discipline and government 
of the church, as any one may see who will read the whole of 
the 75th epistle. 3rd. Firmillian was the disciple of Origen, 
and we have seen that he asserted the divine instiuition of Epis- 
copacy. From these considerations we have strong ground to 
presume, that Firmillian had the same sentiments with respect 
to Episcopacy, that all his contemporaries had. 

But vrhat amounts to more than presumptive evidence, Fir- 
millian in this very letter explains what he means by elders, 
*'Hov»^ is this/' says he, "that when we see Paul baptized his i 
disciples again after John's baptism, ue should make any '[ 
doubt of baptizing them who return from heresy to the church, 
after that unlavvful and profane baptisim of theirs, unless Paul 
was less than these Bishops of whom we are speaking now, that 
these indeed, might give the Holy Ghost, by imposition of hands, 
but Paul was insufficient for it.'' Now v/e see of* what kind of 
elders Firmillian was speaking ; it was expressly Bishops, to 
Vv4iom belongs the supreme power, of baptism, confirm.ation and 
ordination. It has been made as clear as any matter of fact can 
be made, [refering to his former letters,] that bisliops in the age 
of cyprian, were the supreme ministers of the sacraments, and 
the sole ministers of confirmaticn and ordination ; and Firmilli- 
an's ascribing these powers to elders, would prove decisively to 
every impartial person, that by tnem he meant bishops, even if 
he had not said so himself; but when he calls those who were to 
lay their hands upon the returning heretics, by the appropriate 
name of bishops — such bishops as he and Cjjpnan were — there 
cannot be the shadow of a doubt rem^aining. And here let me 
add, that when the appellative bishop is used by the writers of 
the third century, it is ahvays used in the appropriate sense; and 
presbyters are never called bishops, as has been fully proved by 
Pearson and Dodwell. 

Now, I will give you another quotation from the 75th epistle, 
which will answer the double purpose of strengthening the above 



DEFENDED. 137 

proofs, if they need it, and showing FirmiUian's coincidence ®f 
opinion with Cyprian and the other African bishops, and his 
master Origen, in regard to the divine institution of piocesan 
Episcopacy. After showing from Scripture, that the church was^ 
founded upon Peter and the other Apostles, he says, "where 
v/e may observe that the power of remitting sins vras granted to 
the Apostles (whosoever sins ye remit, &:c.,) and to those church- 
es, which they, Vihen sent forth by Christ, formed and founded, 
and to those bishops who succeeded thew^ 'in a due and regular 
course of vicarious ordlnalian. Under what other notion, there- 
fore, can we consider these adversaries of the one Catholic Churchy 
whereof we are members, these enemies of ours, ff 2cs, 1 say^ 
who are successors to the Aposlles,^^ c^v. Here Firmillian declares 
himself and Cyprian, and the other Bishops of his time^ — bishops 
in the appropriate sense of the word — bishops who had mianj 
presbyters and many congregations under them — bishops who 
had the power of the keys, and the sole power of confirmation 
and ordination — he declares, I say, these dioccsrrn bishops to he 
the successors of the Avosiles^ holding b}^ vicarious ordination, 
the very commission which they held, and then, by irresistabld 
consequence, diocesan episcopacy is a divine institution. If any 
man can doubt what sort of elders or Seniors, Firmillian speaks 
of, all I have to say is, that he has the power of doubting, cer- 
tainly, at his own disposal. 

I shall now close the testimonies of the third century with the 
usual quotations from TertuUian, who as you justly observe "be- 
gan to flourish about the year 200*' ; as he was converted to Chris- 
tianity twenty-fiv^ years before tliat pe]iod,he is a o^ood witness 
for the government ot" the church, both in the beginning of the 
third century and in the latter part of the second. Let it also 
be remembered that he was a pi^cshyter of the church of Car- 
thage, but never attained the Episcopal dignity. The quotation 
which you have given from TertuUian I claim for episcopacy. Jx 
has been proved from Origen that in tlie early part of the third 
century diocesan episcopacy prevailed in tlie church. Indeed 
all the testimonies I have produced from th* diC'erent writers of 



iSS THE EPISCOPAL CHUllCH 

that age prove the same thing ; for it is ridiculous to talk of any* 
change a few years before those men lived, when they so posi* 
tively, so repeatedly and so Tinanimously found episcopacy up* 
on apostolic institution. Tertuilian, we shallfind, bears his tes- 
timony to the siame thing in the following passage ; *' The chief 
or highest Priest, wh<5 is the Bishop, has the right of giving bap- 
tism, and after him the presbyters and deacons; but not without 
the Bishop's authority. " Now what would a man who has no 
hypothesis to maintin, think and say of this passage ? Certain- 
ly, he would say, here its evident that Tertuilian speaks of an 
•order or grade, to which he gives the title of High Priest and 
Bishop and which, of consequence from the very title, must be 
possessed of powers superior, not only to those of the deacon, 
l)ut also of the presbyter. And this is not only implied in the 
title, but the writer also gives an instance of the suporiorty of 
the bishop in ascribing to him as its source, all the power which 
the inferior orders have to baptize; and the same must be true 
also of whatever other powers they are possessed. Now if this 
be not the meaning of Tertuilian, then I. do declare, that I have 
not intellect enough to discover the meaning of as plain a pass- 
age as was ever written. 

This too is exactly the language and precisely the sentiment 
of Cyprian, and his contemporaries, as has been proved adsati* 
etatejn. They all ascribe to the bishop tho supremacy of the 
keys or sacrament, and all the power which the inferior orders 
exercise in the church; and the bishop^s power they acsribe to 
the apostolical commission, and that commission to Christ, and 
thus they make out the divine institution of episcopacy. And 
this, I aver, was the universal opinion, so far as the records of 
antiquity inform us, from the first foundation of the christian 
church. 

But another testimony from Tertuilian is the following, ** we 
have also churches founded by John; for thougb Marcion re- 
jects his apocalypse, yet the order or succession of bishops, when 
traced up to its original, will be found to have John for its au- 
thor, in the churches which he planted. " In this passage Te»- 



tullian asserts that St. John founded churches and that he or- 
dained bishops for them— such bishops as existed at the close of 
the second century— who were the high priests of the church, 
and having authority superior to presbyters and deacons. If anj 
thing can be more decisive than this, I know not what it is. 

The next quotation from Tertullian is of the same nature with 
the last. He challenges the heretics — ** Let them produce the 
originals of their churches, and shov>r the order of their bishops, 
so running down successively fi'om the beginning, as that everjr 
first bishop among them shall have had for his author and pred* 
ecessor some one of the apostles, or apostolical men who contin» 
ued with the apostles ; for in this manner the apostolic churches 
bring down their registers ; as the church of Smyrna from Poly- 
carp, placed there by John ; the church of Eome from Clement, 
ordained by Peter; and so do the next prove their apostolic ori- 
gin, by .exhibiting those w^ho were constituted their bishops by 
the apostles. '^ 

Here again we have Episcopacy of apstolic institution ; Bish* 
ops placed over the churches by apostles themselves — not stand" 
ing moderalors [or siiperintendants] but officers who had power 
out of the presbytery as well as in it; and much more power 
■W'hen out than in- — not Rectors of parishes with a tribe of useless 
curates about them; but those officers who authorized Prebyters 
to administer the sacraments, and of consequence to dispense the 
word of life. These were Tertullian's bishops, and these he tellt 
us were the bishops established over the churches by the apos- 
tles.'' 

Dr, Bowden goes on to introduce other testimonies from Ter- 
tullian, but I must refer the reader to his letters. 

Now for the statement of Eutychius in relation to the churche» 
of Alexandria — that which Dr. Bangs says, *^ is more to the point 
than any other" — this is the reply of Bowden to Miller who 
made a similar assertion, 

** I am not a little surprised to find you quoting Eutychiut 
for your purpose. Had you read Pearson, I can hardly think 
that you would have ventured to do it. He proves him to havg 



140 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

been an author upon whom not the least dependence can be placed^ 
when the fact did not happen in or near his own time. Of thii 
take the following evidence; 

1. Eutychius was Patriarch of Alexandria in the tentk century* 
I ask them from whom did he derive his information? -From 
any writers of the first five centuries? Not one of them saya 
that the presbyters of Alexandria consecrated their Bishops. — 
From the records of the church at Alexandria? Amrus Ebnol 
when he took that city, burnt all the books therein. What re- 
gard then is due to an author who quotes no authorities, and lived 
too late to know any thing of the origin of the church of Ale:Kan'- 
(Iria, but what is to be derived from the primitive writers? 

2. Eutychius appears to have been very little conversant with 
the church of Alexandria, in the early ages. In some well known 
particulars he contradicts the best VvTiters of antiquity. He says 
St. Mark came to Alexandria in the ninth year of Claudius, and 
sufTered martyrdom in the first year of Nero ; and that under the 
government of Nero, St. Peter dictated to St. Mark, in the city 
of Rome, the Gospel which goes under the no me of the latter. 

This contradicts Eusebius who says that St. Mark died in the 
eigth year of Nero. Eutychius in this particular contradicts him- 
self also ; for he says that St. Peter was put to death in the 
twenty- second year after the Lord's passion ; that is before the 
government of Nero. Nor do any of the ancients say that St. 
Mark did not write his Gospel, till his return from Alexandria to 
Eome, or that he ever did return. On the contrary it appears 
from Eusebius that he wrote his Gospel h 'fore he lucnt /;?./o Egypt, 

3. Eutychius ignorance of the churoh of Alexandria, in the 
primitive times, Vviil appear from what he says concernig Ori- 
gen, the most noted man of the age in v/hich he lived. Euty- 
chius says, *' in the time of the Emxperor Justinian, there was 
one Origen, bishop of the Mangaoenses, who asserted the doc- 
trine of the transmigration of souls, and denied the resurrection; 
that Justinian sent for Origen to Constantinople, and that the 
bishop of that city excommunicated him." Almost every sylabl© 
of this is false. Origen never was a bishop, and he lived in the see* 



DEFENDED. 141 

ond and third centuries, but Justinian lived in the fifth and sixths 
Dr. Bowden gives many instances of Eutychius' mistakes in 
relation to matters which happened before his time, and having 
declared that he, ** has now given abundant proofs that Eutychi- 
us is not entitled to the least credit, for any thing he asserts con- 
cerning the primitive chin'cb," he then goes on to show from 
witnesses who lived at the time and unimpeachable — the same 
witnesses upon whom v/e rely to prove the authenticity of the 
Scriptures, that the primitive church of Alexandria formed no 
exception to the other ciiiirches established by the apostles, but 
was under the care o^ the Diocesan Bishops properly ordained 
from the time of St. Mark. But I must refer the reader to his 
letters. See also Chapin's primitive church where all the testi- 
mony is collected and the succession of the Bishops given. 

So much for the church at Alexandria and the testimony of 
Eutychius, which Dr. Bangs acknov/ledges is, ^' the most to the 
foint.'*^ In a note, the learned Doctor, {in answer to a writer in 
the Churchman whom he abuses, but whose language, he does 
not dare to give) endeavors to sustain the credit of Eutychius, by 
X\\9 quotations from Mosheim, neither of vv^hich speak of him as 
authority^ and only one of w^iich, I believe, can be found in that 
author, and which is as follows; — " Among the Arabians (in the 
tenth century) no author acquired a higher reputation than Eu- 
tychius, bishop of Alexandria, whose annals^ with several other 
productions of his pen are slill extant." Here it is evident that 
Mosheim is not speaking of Eutychius as authority nor as a wit-- 
ness to matters w^hich happened centuries before his time, but 
only of his rcynitalion as a writer especially among the Arabians. 
Eeally I might say Vv'ith truth, that, among the Methodist^ ne 
writer has acquired a higher rcjmUrlion than Dr. Bangs, whoso 
primitive church is still extant, and yet no one would think that, 
by this declaration I iivfended to speak of him as a gooilicttncss^ 
especially to matters which happened in the first ages of Christi- 
anity ; far from it. V/hat vituperation and abuse w^oukl be heap- 
ed upon the head of the poor Episcopalian, who should presume 
io bring forward a Vv riter in the tenth century, as testimony to ih^ 



142 THE EPISCOPAr^ CHUKCH 

to the true constitution of the primitive church? What chsngo 
would be rung about ** popery" and the " dark ages?" 

Before leaving this part of my subject, let me say to the reader 
that the testimony of all the writers of the first three centuries of 
Christianity to the apostolic institution of Episcopacy, is as full, 
clear and unequivocal as it is upon any other subject whatever j 
and it would be just as absurd for an individual to attempt to- 
prove from their writings that they did not believe in the inspi- 
ration of the Scriptures, as that they did not believe in the divina 
authority of Episcopal government. To be convinced of this^ 
needs no better evidence, tfoat is afforded by Chillingworth, th© 
great apostle of Protestantism, in his essay, entitled, " The Apos* 
tolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated." In an American, 
edition of his work, recently published and which may or ought 
to be found in the'Library of every Divine, on page 522, the read- 
er may see this essay; and the course of the author^s demonstra- 
tion is as follows: — 

1st. "That this government (Episcopacy) was received nnlversaJly in tbm 
ehnrch, either in the Apostles' time or presently after, is so evident and ungues-^ 
tionabla, that the most learned adversaries of tlds government do thevisclxes con- 
fess it." 

Under ihrs head th-e a^ithor gives the confessions of these learned adversaries,, 
tnd then stntes, 

2nd. *'Th?\t seeing. that the Episcopal government is confessedly so ancient, 
end so catholic, it cannot with reason be denied to be apostolic." 

Under this head the author proves that **so great a chang^e, as between prei^ 
byterial government and episcopal could not possibly have prevailed all th» 
world over in a little time," nor could it have been produced without some re- 
cord, much commotion, &c., and then he concludes as follows: — 

"When I shHll see, therefore, all the fables in the metamorphoses acted, and 
pro-ve true stories; when I shall see alf th^ democracies and aristocracies io 
ihe world, lie down and awake into monarchies: then will I begin to believ* 
that presbyterial gover'iment,. havingcontinued in the church during the Apos- 
tle's times, should presently a-fter, (against the Apostle's doctrine and wili of 
Christ) be whirled about like a scene scene in a raiisk, and transformed into 
tpiscopacy. Jn tne mean time, while things remain thus incredible, and in 
human reason, impossible, I hope I shall have reason to conclude thus, 

*' Episcopal government is acknowledged to have been universally received 
in the Church presently afterthe Apostles' times. 

^'Between the Apostles' times and this presently after, there was not time 
enough for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration. And therefore there waa 
no such alterationas is pretended. And therefore Episcopacy being confessed 
to be so ancient f nd Catholic, must be granted also to be Apostolic; quod erat 
demonstrandum." 

Can. it be true, as I have heard> that the ^' Pastor of St. Joha»** 






DEFENDED*.. 1^ 

introduced Mr. ChillingAvorth to his audience as opposed to ther, 
divine instituion of episcopacy 1 Most sincerely do I hope, that 
no individual who attended those Lectures may now- be able to 
recall his name, as having been given in the list of authorities^ 

Having thus examined the instances of Presbyterial ordination 
which the learned Doctor has given from the Scriptures, and also 
his statement in relation to the church at Alexandria, I come now^ 
to consider the modern authors whom he quotes as sustaining^ 
his positions. 

L Lord King. ^' The quotations which I shall produce," saya 
the Doctor, '^are taken chiefly from Lord King's account of th» 
constitution^ discipline and worship of the Primitive Church- 
And that the reader may rely upon these as correct, I wall re* 
mark, that the author has fully verified alt his quotations, by in- 
serting the originals themselves in the margin of his book, which, 
any reader of it may consult for himself." 

Now, after this, one would expect, that the learned Doctoi 
would give some actual quotations from Lord King, but this is 
not the case; not a single one does he give. As,, for instance^ 
he goes on, "Clemens Eomanus sometimes mentions many 
hisho'ps m the church of Corinth, w^hom he also calls in othei 
parts of his e^^hilQ^ yreshyters^ But this is not a quotation from 
Lord King nor is it marked as such, nor is it a quotation froni 
Clemens Eomanus, nothing of the kind, but the mere assertion of 
Dr. Bangs, without any authority whatever,, his inferences per- 
haps from King's book; and so it is wath all that follows undeir 
the same head. Is this a fair v>ray to give quotations I But now 
for Lord King himself., 

It is true that his Lordship w^'ote a book, with the above title^ 
not against the church, but favoring parity as agreeable in somo 
particulars to primitive usage and therefore allowable, but utter- 
ly opposed in every thing to snch a performance as that of Mr. 
Wesley upon Dr. Coke, in his private chamber at Bristol. And 
what are the facts about this book ? Why, it was so completely 
and satisfactorily replied to by Slater in his " Original Draught," 
and in a friendly way, that his Lordship instead of replying to 



144 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

Slater, presented liim with a lucrative benefice at his disposal, a» 
a re ward for his triumph. See advertisement to Slater's Draught. 
Must not a man be hard pushed for arguments who will resort 
to Lord King ? especially at the present time, and when he wish- 
es to introduce the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, — men 
whose writings can now be found in every well selected library ? 

Another author relied upon by Br. Bangs, is bishop Stilling-- 
fleet, of whom he speaks as follows : 

,**Bi'hop Stillingileet has given evidence in his Ircnlaim, of a 
most dilligent and impartial research into the records of the 
Church on this subject, and from v^^hose learned book I have bor- 
rowed the two last quotations. But why should I quote any par- 
ticular passage of his book, since his entire performance, is taken 
up in a most successful attempt to establish the fact, that bish- 
ops and presbyters are identical as to order, and that therefore 
they possessed the inherent right of Consecration, before their 
liberties w^ere restrained by episcopal encroachments, or by their 
own voluntary act, for the sake, as they thought, of greater 
peace and unanimity? Yet, as the judgement of such a man 
after a most laborious investigation, sl^ouid have great weight 
in settling controversies of this sort, let us hear him in his own 
words." 

Now, what are the facts in relation to Bishop Stillingfieett 
They are briefly these. He wrote two books on this subject — 
the one called the *' Ireniciun,^^ and the other the "Unreasonable- 
ness of Separation" — the former written when he was twenty- 
four years old, the latter when he was forty-five- — the former was 
written " with a view to moderate the violent controversies which 
the dissenters unceasingly kept alive against the Church," and 
under the influence of his feelings on this point he "made con- 
cessions which he afterwards not only regretted, but utterly re- 
nounced, and this not only in his latter vrork. but in every way, 
by sermons and addresses. Hence in the preface to his book on 
the " Unreasonableness of Separation," and referring to his Iren* 
icum, he says, "Will you not allow one single person, who hap- 
pened to Avrite about these matters, when he Vv'as very youngs 



r)EFENDED, 145 

m twenty year^ time of the most busy and thoughtful part of his 
tif, to see reason to alter his judgement y In a sermon preached 
on the occasion of an ordination at St. Paul's, *' when his judg- 
ment was perfectly matured, and his reading had become more 
extensive and better digested," he declared, *^I cannot find any 
argument of force in the New Testament, to prove that ever the • 
christian churches were under the sole governm.ent of Presby- 
ters;" and again — '^ Tliis succession was not in a mere presiden- 
'Cy of order; but the bishops succeeded the Apostles in the govern- 
ment over those churches -^^ and again, ** Inhere is as great reason 
to believe the Apostolical sKrCcessiori to he of divine Institution^ as 
ihe canon of Scripture or the observ-ation of the Lord^s day^ And 
in his *' Unreasonableness of Separation," he asserts, that, /** the 
^case of Timothy is an uncontrollabk instance of diocesan Epis- 
capacy." 

Now^, I ask, was it right, was it honest in Dr. Bangs, "who must 
have known these facts, as they have been reiterated again and 
again, thus to attempt to sustain his arguments by the authority 
of bishop StillingHeet ? Did he think that his Methodist breth- 
ren were so ignorant and credulous as to allow themselves to be 
duped and deceived, by such a manifest imposition? Must they 
not regard it as a bare faced deception ? Yes ! truly, *' the j udge- 
ment of such a man after a most laborious investigation should 
have great weight in settling controversies of this sort," But 
when the judgement of such a man is given, we are solemnly 
bound to give his best mid most sober and most deliberate judg» 
tnent. Common honesty requires that we should fully and fairly 
state all the material facts in the case. Have I a right to say 
that my neighbor's opinion are so and so, when he himself has 
informed me that they are not so — that although they were so 
once they are not so now ? And this expressly for the purpose • 
of influencing the jadgment of others in a matter of the most 
grave and serious interest ? Dr. Bangs had a right to use the ar- 
gument of the Irenicum or any other book Avhich he chose, with 
due credit, but he had no right to give the judgment of bishop 
Stillingfleet in the w^ay he has, for it was not his judgment, 

10 



146 



THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 



But another authority introduced by Dr. Bangs is Bishop White^ 
as follows : 

*' The next evidence which I shall hrrng- forward in favour of 
the truth we are endeavouring to establish, is the late Bishop 
White. At the close of the Revolutionary war, before the in- 
dependency of these United Staies had been acknowledged, the- 
Clergy of the English Church not meeting with encouragement 
from the Bishops of England, in their application for an^ Ameri- 
can Episcopacy, the Rev.. Mr. White, then a Presbyter of the^ 
Church,, wrote a pamphlet, entitled, 'The case of the Episcopal, 
Church in the United States considered.' In this pamphlet which^ 
was published in 1783, the author proposed the electing and con-- 
vsecrating a bishop by the hands of presbyters^ pleading the law-- 
fulness of it from the exigencies of the times. '^ 

Now, that Bishop White did write a pamphlet with the abovB: 
title^ is true, but that he ever proposed either in that pamphlet or 
in any other to be found among his acknowledged wu'itings, ^^the- 
electing and the consecrating of a Bishop by the hands of ireshy-- 
ters^^^ is as gross and palpable a mistake as even Dr. Bangs cart? 
utter. 

The facts- about that pamphlet,^ are these.. The temporary ef- 
fect of the Revolution, upon the Church, it is not to be denied,., 
was disastrous in the extreme ; for many of the Clergy who had. 
been supported here by the '' Society for propagating the Gospel," • 
were compelled to return home, and the enemies of the churchy 
with great magnanimity,, took that opportunity to ariay the pas- 
sions and prejudices of the people against her, and this, notwith- 
standing that some of the ablest defenders of, and actors in the: 
Revolution (Bishop White among the form.er and V»^ashington 
among the latter) belonged to her fold. Under these disastrous 
circumstances the members of the church were *' scattered and 
pealed,'^ and Bisljop White for the purpose of preventing theif 
entire alienation, vvTote a pamphlet in which he "proposed," to 
use his own words, "the combining of the Clergy and of repre- 
sentatives of the Congregations, in convenient districts, w^ith a 
representative body of the whole, nearly on the plan subsequently 



BEFEKDED. 147 

adopted. This ecclesiastical representative was to make a de- 
claration approving of Episcopacy, and professing a determination 
io possess the succession lohen it could he obtained.'^'' 

But to obviate objections to this plan, especially from those 
who were unwilling to act at all in such a matter without a Bish- 
op, Dr. White endeavored to show, that the case was one of abso- 
lute necessity, the arrangement proposed a mere temporary expe- 
dient, and therefore, in his opinion, not inconsistent with Episco- 
pal government. His arguments upon that point, however, were 
seized upon by Dr. Linn in the controversy v/hich was carried on 
in the Albany Centinel, some years ago, and an attempt v/as 
made to draw from them some acknowledgements unfavorable to 
the claim.s of Episcopacy, But the Bishop himself Vv^rote to Dr. 
Linn, and drew from him a confession of mistake. All the Let- 
ters pro and con. were subsequently collected by Bishop Hobart, 
and published in a volume entitled, "Essa}^ on Episcopacy," 
and to that the reader is referred. 

In his memoirs of the church, Bishop White thus alludes to 
the subject. ^' Many years after the publication of the pamphlet, 
a clergyman of standing in an- Anti-Episcopalian Society, alledg- 
ed some passages of the performance as sustaining ordinations 
not Episcopal. But he had the candor publicly to acknowledge 
his mistake when it was pointed out to him." 

I may here add, that the learned Dr. Bangs has gone farther 
than any other writer in misrepresenting the sentiments of that 
pamphlet, and to him belongs the peculiar honor of having dis- 
covered, that ^^ it proposed the electing and consecrating of a Bish" 
op hy the hands ofpreshyters.''^ What comments can be made upon 
such a statement, without transgressing the ordinary rules of de- 
corum ! 

IV. But another argument of Dr. Bangs is, that John Wes- 
ley was a '' Reformer" — "called, sustained and sanctioned by 
the head of the Church" — and asking the question, "was it not 
necessary for the reformation and salvation of the people, for Mr. 
Wesley to adopt those measures," the Doctor replies, **I think it 
was." Now, without any comments on the horrible blasphemy 



148 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

here uttered, as though any thing had been left by the Saviour 
unfinished, which was really ''necessary for the reformation and 
salvation of the people" — such blasphemy as is only equalled by 
Mr. Wesley himself, when he asked, in his " Appeal,'' what per- 
son could have been less liable to objection than myself, whom 
the Almighty has employed?" — without any comments upon 
this, I pass on directly to the assertion, that Mx, AVesley was a 
'• Reformer of the people." Let it be acknou'ledged that he was^ 
and that his labors were crowned vrith extraordinary success* 
What then ? Had he a right or has any other man a right, sim- 
ilarly situated, to violate or chano-e any of the established ordi- 
nances of the christian church, without an express commission 
from heaven, and such a commission as can be established bj 
undoubted miracles? Surely not; .for the Church is a divine 
institution — ''the Church of God ichich he hath purch^ised with hii 
own blood ;^^ and tile christian ministry is not only an essential 
part of the Church, without which it could no more exist, than 
any other Institution can exist when it has not a duly constituted 
succession of officers, but it is a part which the Saviour himself 
established. Hence we say, that neither Mr. Wesley nor any 
other man, no matter what his talents or his success as a preach- 
er of the Gospel, has a right to change or alter or modify anj 
part of the Church of Christ, without an express and undoubted 
warrant from Christ himself. Had Mr. Wesley such a warrant ? 
Was he even an inspired man? Nay, may not his extraordina- 
ry success as a reformer in morals and religion, have contributed 
more than any thing else to lead him astray, so that instead of 
making him more humble and guarded in not going beyond th.9 
commandment of the Lord to do either more or less, he became 
self-confident and unmindful of his own sacred obligations ? 
Who can read the history of his life without perceiving, in many 
particulars, the workings of this self-confident and delusive spij> 
it so natural to man? Take, for instance, his controversy with 
Mr. Whitfield. Here we find him declaring that, " he had an im^ 
mediate call from God to preach and publish to the vrorld, that Mr. 
Whitfield's doctrine is highly injurious to Christ." And at the 



DEF ENDED. 149 

same time we find Mr. Whitfied also declaring, that **he had his 
doctrines from Christ and his Apostles and was taught them of 
God"-— that *' the Holy Spirit from time to time had led him into 
a knowledge of divine things, and directed him by reading the 
Scriptures and watching upon his knees, even in the minutest 
circumstance, as plainly as the Jews were directed, when con- 
sulting the Urim and Thummim. at the High Priest's breast," 
And thus it was, that both of these extraordinary reform.ers, be- 
<!ame so deceived and deluded as to believe that they were real- 
ly inspired, and that one w^as commissioned to preach against the 
other. Most honorable is it to Mr. Whitfield that he madi to 
the world a full and frank confession of this delusion. *'I do 
confess," said he, "that inia.gination has mixed itself with the 
work I have performed. I own, too, that I have made impress- 
ions without the written word, my rule of acting. I have been 
too bitter in my zeal ; wildfire has mixed with it, and I find I have 
written and spoken too much in my own spirit, when I thought I 
was writing and speaking entirely by the assistance of the Spirit ' 
of God." See Nott's Sermons. 

Now, instead of allowing that Mr. Wesley v/as an inspired 
man, or that he had a right to change or modify any of the in- 
stitutions of heaven, in consequence of his w^onderful success as 
n preacher of the Gospel, we rather take him as an illustrious 
example, to show the dangerous tendency of the doctrines which 
Dr. Bangs upholds. And we say, that if such a man, Vvith all 
his talents and acquirements, became so deluded and deceived 
by a vain and self confident spirit, how much greater is the dan- 
ger to weaker minds and less established characters! 

Here let it be remembered (though in some respects a digress-* 
ion) that the Episcopal Church does not deny the necessity of an 
inward call of the Holy Spirit, to qualify every individual to as- 
sume the great and solemn obligations of the christian ministry. 
On the contrary, the Church addresses this question to every one 
who is presented as a candidate for that office — ^^ Do you think 
that you are inwardly moved by the H. )ly Ghost, to take jcpon ycra 
this ojfice and ministration?''^ And unless the candidate can cou- 



150 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCS 

scientiously answer that he, '' thinks so,^^ he is never ordained* 
But the church does not look upon the man's assertions in this 
respect as the best proof of his inward call. She rather follows 
the example of primitive times, when the Apostles said to the 
brethren, "look yc out seven men of honest report, full of the 
Holy Ghost and of wisdom whom ice may appoint over this busi- 
ness;" andv/hen the candidates are thus presented by thebreth* 
ren with the testimony of their approbation, the church believes 
that this is m.uch better evidence of an invv^ard call, and should 
be so regarded by the condidates themselves, than any fancies 
or feelings which they may possess. And certainly we may be 
permitted' to think that if any man had presented himself before 
the Apostles, as "full of the Koly Ghost and wisdom," merely 
upon the testimony of his own invv^ard assurances however strong, 
he would have been instantly rejected by them, for that very 
reason, as utterly unqualified to enter upon the duties of such an 
office and ministration. Indeed w^e cannot but think that the case 
of such a man, in some particulars at least, would have resem- 
bled that of Simon, who desired to exercise some of the duties of 
the ministry, and that the Apostles Vv'ould have said to him as 
they did to Sim.on, " thou hast neitner part nor lot in this matter, 
for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." 

But what is this doctrine of success as it seems to be upheld by 
Dr. Bangs, and pleaded by the folloAvers of every Reformer? 
Can it be, that success as we understand and perceive it, is any 
test of truth, or any proof of a divine commission ? We think 
not ; for that which now appears to us so successful may in the 
end turn out to be a positive detriment to the cause of Truth; and 
v/e believe this to be emphatically the case with all such divis- 
ons in the christian church as that which Mr. Wesley most un- 
wittingly made. AYe are verily persuaded that, if "those who 
profess and call themselves christians," were all "baptized by 
one spirit into one body," as the Saviour intended they should 
and prayed that they might — and each individual member, in- 
stead of being "puffed up" with his extraordinary gifts, should 
"esteem other better than himself" — and all "striving togeth- 



DEFENDED. 161 

er'* in tkeir several stations "for tlie faitli of the Gospel/' then 
indeed, the prayer of Jesus would be answered, and the implied 
promise of that prayer fulfilled, the world would believe that 
<jrod had sent him. But so long as professing christians are not 
united among ■themseives, especially upon the fundamental prin- 
ciples of the christian ministry, and every individual is allowed 
to preach every thing which comes into his head, without any 
regard to the doctrines of the church, which the Apostle declares 
is "the pillar and ground of the Truth;" and so long as profess- 
ing christians themselves have little or no faith in Christianity as 
a divine Institution, containing all that is necessary for the re- 
formation and salvation of the world, which cannot be improved 
by the hand of man, and v/hich no Eeformer, however eminent 
his abilities or successful his efforts, has a right to modify or 
'change, so long must it be expected that infidelity will increase, 
that false prophets will multiply and that Christians, instead of 
making any positive advances in the demolition of the kingdoms 
^of sin and Satan in Pagan and heathen lands, will scarcely be 
^able to maintain their position at home. 

But let the Methodist himself test this doctrine of success. 
Let him go to the Turk and urge the success of Mr. Wesle}' as 
a proof of his divine mission, and exhibit before his eyes, if you 
please, the half million of followers to which the number has been 
reduced in England. What would the Musslem.an say? ^ Look 
to Mohammed and 8 3 the number of his follov/ers, amounting 
to more than a hundred and forty millions. And then, if success 
is really any test of truth, the Methodist w^ould be compelled to 
fall down and worship the false Prophet of Mecca. But is it 
said that no comparison can be drawn between the success of 
Mr. Wesley and that of Mohammed or of any other acknowl* 
edged delusion — that the followers of the former were really con- 
verted from error to truth, from sin unto God. Let this be ac^ 
knowledged — although we have reason to believe that there 
is some truth in every delusion, and enough, it may be, by the 
grace of God to produce a radical change in the affections of the 
heart — still the illustration is sufficient to show that vitrc success 



153 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

is no test of carrectness. And: besides this the Apostle tezche^ 
us rather to rejoice than to weep whenever Christ is preached^ 
though Ave cannot ajiways approve of the manner, and notwith- 
standing even he may be preached, '^ of envy and strife and con- 
tention." Allowing, therefore, that Christ is truly preached, by 
the mutitude of sects which are continually starting into exis* 
tence, and that so far good is done, still it does by no means foI» 
low that these sects are right, or that they ought to b^ approved 
by the members of the christian church. 

But we may take another view of this subject in order to show 
the fallacy of the argument which is based upon success. If 
success be any test of correctness, then the want of success must 
bs a proof of error. Will the learned Dr. Bangs maintain this 
latter doctrine ? Will he apply it to the Jev/ish Church during 
the time of its captivity and sa}^, that in consequence of that cap* 
tivity, it was not in reality the church of God? Will he apply it 
to the christian church during the time of the Arian heresy, or 
during the period of the/iark ages, and say that the Church of 
Christ did not then exist? Or Vv^ll he acknowledge the justice, 
of the ar<niment which the infidel sometimes brino^s aorainst chris- 
tianity, that if it were really divine, then it would produce a more 
decided effect upon the character and conduct of the world ? But 
I have no time to dwell lenger upon this point, and therefore pass 
on to tjie consideration of another subject. 

V. In the latter part of Dr. Bangs' book, the learned author 
attacks the Apostolic succession and the divine institution of 
Episcopacy in particular. His first argument is as follows :— 

"They (Episcopalians) hold, it must be remembered, that this 
third order of the ministry is a divine right. Now, what is ne- 
cesary to constitute a divine right? It must be divinely institu- 
ted. It must rest on mi express and implicit command of God,. 
Nothing less than this will suffice to constitute any ordinance or 
ceremony divine. But it requires more than this to establish the* 
doctrine of the divine institution of diocesan episcopacy, as held 
by a portion of the Protestant Episcopalians. They must brings 
an explicit command that this institution is of perpetual obligatiorss 



DEFENDED. 153 

in the church, in all ages, and under all circumstances/' p 198, 
Now, before examining the objection here brought before us, 
iet me remind the reader that every truth is not only liable to ob- 
jections, but that nothing is easier than to start objections to the 
best established facts* The ingenious Atheist can find many ob- 
jections to the truth of the existence of God. The ingenious De^ 
ist is at no loss for arguments to overthrow the divine authority 
of the Scriptures, and there is no peculiar doctrine of the Biblo 
which may not be doubted and denied by the cavilling sceptic; 
indeed, it is the peculiar habit of Infidelity to demand, on all 
these points, more "proofs and especially to declare the necessity 
of some kind of proof which possibly cannot be brought. The 
"Church, therefore, does not expect that the divine institution of 
episcopacy, as a fact affirmed and believed in by her, v/ill ecape 
without being called in question by those who are rather dispos- 
ed to start objections, than to examine evidence. She knows 
that this is the fate of every truth to be opposed and denied, but 
at the same time she knows that it is her duty and province to 
deal in the 'positive— io affirm the truth as she has received it, 
and this notwithstanding the province of infidelity to deal in the 
negative, to deny the truth which the Church affirms. Let no in- 
dividual imagine, therefore, that the institution of Episcopacy is 
not founded upon divine right, because Dr. Bangs or any other 
man is able to fimd objections to it, and such objectsons as may 
be plausible to those w4io are unacquainted with -the subject. 

But what says the learned Doctor? Nothing can have a di- 
vine right which is not divinely instituted; and to be divinely 
instituted, "it must rest on an express and explicit command of 
God." " Nothing less than this will sufilce to constitute any or- 
dinance or cerem.ony divine." Having laid down these proposi- 
tions the author goes on to demand this "positive proof," and in 
the supposed absence of it, he declares, that " there is no such 
command in the Bible," that "there is no such divine right," 
and therefore, that Episcopacy "rests solely on an assumption of 
human authority and is binding upon no man." 

Now, in answer to all this reasoning, we reply, Ist, That iho 



154 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

|)roof which tlie Doctor here demands is really afforded, that the 
^stahlishment of the apostolic ojice, being an order in the min- 
istry confessedly su|)erior both to presbyters and deacons, by the 
Saviour himself^ amounts to nothing less than a divine command 
for its observance ; and that the subsequent practice of the church 
in the apostolic age is proof positive, that he intended it to be 
continued. We sa}^, too, that all the express and positive pre* 
^cepts requiring the obedience of christians to the lawful authori- 
ty of the ministry, are nothing more nor less than so many com- 
mands and precepts requiring obedience to that divinely consti- 
tuted ministry, which then existed, and which the Saviour and 
his Apostles 'established. 

We reply in the 2nd, That there is no foundation whatever for 
the Doctor's asumption, that "nothing less than an express and 
explicit command of God will suffice to constitute any ordinance 
or ceremony divine." Vv^e deny in toto, this strange assertion, 
^and we consider it not onl}^ strange and unfounded, but utterly 
inexcusable, as coming from a m^an who professes to be a "Mas- 
ter in Israel." Can the Doctor find an ^'express and explicit 
coimiiand'^ for the observance of the first day of the week in- 
stead of the seventh? and yet, in the absence of such com- 
mand will he presume to say, that " it rests entirely on an assump^ 
tion of human authority^ and is therefore binding upon no man?^^ 
Can the Doctor find "an express and explicit command" for the 
admission of females to the Lord's Supper? and yet in the ab- 
sence of such command will he deny to them the ordinance and 
declare that they are not bound to receive it? Can the Doctor 
find an express and explicit command for Infant Baptism? And 
yet, merely in consequence of the absence of such command will 
he take the ground of the Baptists, and affirm that this ordinance 
" rests entirely on an assumption of human authority, and is, 
therefore binding upon no man?" Can the learned Doctor even 
find an "express and explicit command" for the divine right of 
the cannonical books of Scripture? and yet in the absence of 
such command v/ill he take the ground of the Deist and declare, 
that they "rest entirely on an assmnption of human authority, 



DEFENDED. 155 

:and are therefore, binding upon no man ?" Now will the learned 
Doctor inform us what respect is due to the opinions of a divine 
whose arguments "rest efi-tirely on an assumption of human au- 
thority," and whose reasonings are so unfounded and absurd as 
to be ''binding upon no mian?" 

Again, says Dr. Bangs — "This doctrine of an unbroken suc- 
cession, being a bugbear by which weak and timid minds have 
been frightened into a belief that the true Church is to be found 
only among those who can trace their origin through an uninter- 
rupted line of bishops of a third order in the ministry, deserves 
farther consideration. Hence I promised, in my last, to look at 
those ecclesiastical tables to which reference has been made by 
Dr. Chapman and others." 

"Now, on turning to the tables of Mosheim I find the follow- 
ing note of the historian at the com^mencement of his catalogue: 
*The succession of the first bishops of Rome is a matter full of 
intricacy and ohsciiruy. We shall, however, follow the learned 
Bishop Pearson.' Folio v/ing this guide Mosheim places Linus 
whom St. Paul mentions in his second epistle to Timothy, at the 
head of the list, and as succeeding Paul and Peter. According 
to this, Linus died in the year 79, about forty-six years after the 
crucifixion. Now, the question is, from whom does the Historian 
derive his information respecting the list of bishops ? ' Undoubt- 
edly from Eusebius. Well, what does he say respecting the cat- 
talogue which he furnishes? In book 4th, chap. 5, he says — 
" We have not acertained, in any v/nv, that the times of the bish- 
ops of Jerusalem have been regrUuIy preserved on record, for 
tradition says that they lived but a very short time." 

Now, allowing that the learned Doctor has here stated tho 
truth, (which, however, I shall be under the necessity of shoAV- 
ing is far from the case,) yet allowing that Mosheim speaks of 
** the saccession of the first bishops of Rome as a matter full of 
intricacy and obscurity," and that Eusebius declares that "the 
times of the bishops of Jerusalem have not been regularly pre- 
served on record," what would naturally be the inference of any 
sensible man? That there was no succession of bishops at all 



158 TSE EPISCOPAL' CHITECH 

either in the churches of Jerusalem or Eome? Certainly not ; 
for the very fact that the succession is thus spoken of, not a& a 
doubtful matter in itself considered, but only as obscure or intri- 
cate or not preserved in its order, is proof positive that some kind 
of succession really existed. If some historian should say that 
there is much intricacy and obscurity in relanon to the histories 
of Greece and Rome, would any sensible person, therefore, con^ 
elude that no such nations existed as Greece and Rome? Or if 
it should be said that the times of the various Sovreigns of Eu- 
rope had not been regularly preserved upon record, could it, there- 
fore, be inferred, that there had never been any Sovreigns at all I 
Or apply these observations to the various versions and manu- 
scripts of Scripture, and because there is much intricacy and ob- 
scurity in relation to them, as all must acknowledge, are we^ 
therefore, to conclude that no such versions and manuscripts re- 
ally existed ? Nay, rather, would not such observations absolute- 
ly imply their existence? Who doubts the fact that there has 
been a regular succession of Presidents of the United States, and 
yet, notvv^ithstanding their recent origin, how many are there 
v/ho could accurately relate their times? Who doubts the fact 
that there has been a regular succession of Bishops in the Amer- 
ican Episcopal Church, and yet, we presume Dr. Bangs would 
find somie intricacy and obscurity in making out the list? 

But the fact is, the learned Doctor does not seem to consider it 
at all important for him to quote his authorities correctly, or to 
state the real sentiments of the authors to whom he refers. The 
passage w^hich I have recited and which I now propose to exam- 
ine, is only a specimen, and by no means the most injurious to 
his reputation as a fair and candid writer. 

1st. As to Dr. Chapman. It is not true that he refers to Mo- 
sheim as furnishing any taMes of his own, but only to the fact that 
in v/riting the history of the Church he is obliged to acknowledge 
the existence of successive bishops in every period beginning 
from the first, and presiding over the churches, and this acknowl^ 
edgement on the part of Mosheim who was a dissenter, Episco* 
palians regard as a reluctant confession to the truth, 



DEFENDED. 157 

Snd. As to any tables furnished by Mosheim, or that he say»^ 
•* the succession of the first bishops of Rome is a matter full of 
intricacy and obscurity," all this we utterly deny. One of th^ 
translators of Mosheim (McClaine) appends to his Translation, ea> 
pressly as his btvn, some " Chronological Tables" of Bishops and 
Sorreigns, and he is the person (not the Historian, as Dr. Bangs 
affirms,) who makes the observation about intricacies and obscu- 
rities. At the same time, however, notwithstanding these intri* 
€acies and obscurities he has been enabled to furnish us with a 
catalogue of Episcopal successions beginning with the ApostLe* 
«nd coming down to our own age. 

3rd. As to the artful change which the learned Doctor has 
cnide from the Bishops of Rome to those of Jerusalem, and thip 
expressly for the purpose of sustaining the testimony of his Mo»' 
ftheim by the testimony of Eusebius, in relation to the former 
Church, v/e have nothing more to say, than that such a changi& 
would not probably have been made could the Doctor have found 
any thing at all* to his purpose in the latter author. And a» 
tlxere are several copies of Eusebius in this place, the reader i» 
referred to that work, where he will find a " Tabular view of thd. 
cdcder of the Episcopal succession," in the churches of Romxe, Je- 
rusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Laodicea and Cesarea, all given 
without any expressions of doubt or intricacy/ or obscurity as tM 
Che fact. 

4th. As to the quotation which the Doctor has given from 
Eusebius, I would remark that it is the only one in w^hich he ha» 
used the exact words of the author, although he professes to do 
«o in several places ; and yet such is the manner in which h« 
quotes him, that he has entirely perverted his meaning; for when 
Eusebius says, "the twies of the Bishops of Jerusalem have noJ 
%een regularly preserved on record, for tradition says that they 
all lived but a very short time,'''' the author refers simply to th« 
length of time during lohich they lived as Bishops, and not to any 
uncertainty as to the fact of their existence. This will be evident 
lo the reader by considering the whole passage. Having conclu- 
ded some remarks about the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria a0 



158 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

ifoUows, "Alexander, Bishop of Rome died, having completed 
the tenth year of his ministrations — Xistus was his successor ; and 
about the same time Primus dying [in Alexandria] in the twelfth 
year of the Episcopate^ was succeeded by Justus" — the author 
then goes on in the next chapter to speak of the Bishops of Jeru* 
salem as follows — "We have not ascertained in any way, that 
the times of the Bishops in Jerusalem have been regularly pre* 
served on record, for tradition says that they all lived hut a very: 
short time. So much, however, have I learned yrom icriters^ that 
down to the invasion of the Jews under Adrian, there were ff teen 
successions of Bishops in that Church, all of which, they say, 
were Hebrews from the first, and received the knowledge of 
Christ pure and unadulterated; so that in the estimiation of those 
who were able to judge, they were well approved, and worthy 
of the Episcopatl office. For at that time the whole Church un- 
der them consisted of faithful Hebrews, who continued from the 
time of the Apostles, until the siege v.diich then took place. The 
Jews then again revolting from the Romans were subdued and 
captured after very severe conflicts. In the mean time as the 
Bishops from the circumcision failed, it may be necessary now 
to recount them in order from the first. The first then was James^ 
called the brother of our Lord; after whom the second was Sim- 
eon, the third Justus, the fourth Zaccheus, the fi_fth Tobias, the 
sixth Benjamin, the seventh John, the eighth Matthew, the ninth 
Philip, the tenth Seneca, the eleventh Justus, the twelfth Levi^ 
the thirteenth Ephros, the fourteenth Joseph, and finally, the fif- 
teenth Judas. These are all the Bishops that filled up the time 
from the Apostles, until the above m.entioned time, all of the cir- 
cumcision.'* 

So much for the testimony of Eusebius upon this point, and for 
his meaning when he says that "We have not ascertained that 
the times of the Bishops of Jerusalem have been regularly pre* 
•erved on record," &:c. 

**This hypothetical manner," says Dr. Bangs "in which Eu- 
iebius speaks concerning the vouchers for what lie records doubt- 
Wss induced Mosheim to say that the subject was involved in 



DETENBED. 159 

much "intricacy and obscurity.'' Alas I how much tusaer is it 
to make mistakes than, it is to correct them, and with how much 
boldness does this reverend divine pervert the truth ! Can that: 
fee a holy cause which compels its advocates to adopt such meas- 
ures in order to sustain it ^ 

Again,, the learned Doctor proceeds as follows : — "In the ninth, 
century, between the pontificate of Leo IV, who died in 855, and 
that of Benedict HI, such were the shameful intrigues by whick 
rival candidates contended for the prize of the popedom^ that a. 
certain womariy who had art to disguise her sex for a considera-- 
ble time, is said by learning, genius and dexterity,, to have made 
good her vv^ay to the papal cfeir, and to have governed the church 
with the title and dignity of pontiff for about two years.' I am^ 
aware that the truth of this narrative has been called in question.. 
But Mosheim, whom Dr., Chapman quotes in favor of his ecclesi- 
astical genealogy, with high approbation, says,, that 'during the 
jive succeeding centuries it was general!}^ believed, and a vast num- 
ber of vfrite-rs bore testimony to its truth;, nor before the refor- 
mation, undertaken by Luther, was it consi<lered by any either 
as incredible in itself or as ignominious ta the Churcli.' And if' 
being in, such a corrupt succession, and receiving episcopal con- 
secration, constitute a. subject a canonical bishop, I see no reason- 
why Pope JoaR: may not be considered as good a pope as any of 
them. This indeed^ must be alloAved by Dr. Chapman and hisfc 
converts, or they must at once and forever abandon the doctrine: 
of an unbroken succession. Let them take their choice. Either 
allow that an intriguing prostitute was a cannonicai bishop, mere- 
ly because she was artful enough to mount the thron^'of the pope-- 
dom, and obtain the blessing of the succession, or acknowledge- 
that this line was snapped assunder by the hands of an artful 
womam. I think, a man who will deliberately place himself upon- 
either horn of such a dilemma, exposes himself to the just rid- 
icule of all men of sense, and to the commiseration of all womea 
of piety."....*' Here, then, is your ordy fountain, your only stream;, 
and that this has '^een abominably polluted and remains- so, con-- 
laminated beyond the power of language to describe, by thft- 



160 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

bloody waters of strife and war, and the muddy streams of moral 
pollntion, is put beyond alt dispute. And more than all, in the 
instance referred to, the stream becam.e so turbid that it actually 
ceased to flow. So sensible were the Romish successionists of 
the truth of this, that when Luther commenced his reformatioa, 
and to defend himself against the rude assaults- of his adversa- 
ries, plunged them headlong into this now turbid and polluted 
stream ; their friends in order to extricate them went to work to 
open the channel and to cleanse the fountain. Though Pope Joan 
had lain quietly intered for five centuries, as having been an un- 
disputed pontiff'^ filling the direct line of succession she was now 
most inhumanly disinterred and her identity called in question! 
This was cruel. But what can the upholders of error do, when 
so hard pressed by the advocates of truth? Luther was excoTih- 
municated, while Pope Joan had long been cannonized] JohB 
Wesley was a schismatic, while the she-pope had been recog- 
nized as a: connecting link in the imperishable chain of Apostoli* 
succession. Now', will any man in his sober senses say, that the 
validity of his credentials as a minister of Jesus Christ, depend* 
Qpon such a succession ? That from its having descended to hini 
through such a bastardly lineage, he is therefore legitimately 
born? Let him say it, who wishes." (Dr. Bangs' Original 
Church, ps 228 — 231, where much more of the same may b^ 
found.) 

Now, in reference to all this, I remark 

1st. Tnat I sould consider it entirely beneath my notice, if 
I had not been informed that the worthy Pastor of St. Johns had 
repeated it in substance to his audience, in the course of his Lec- 
tures, and if I did not know that our Methodist brethren are very 
industrious in circulating the story, not only in the Books and 
Tracts of Dr. Bangs, but by Sermons from the Pulpit. Thes« 
brethren undoubtedly give it circulation entirely upon the credit 
of Dr. Bangs, and cannot, therefore, be held wholly responsible 
for the mistatem^nt, although it is their duty to examine the au- 
thorities for themselves, and not to depend entirely upon the rep- 
resentations of any one individual for historical facts. 



I 



DEFENDED. 161 

2nd. That there is no truth whatever in the story of the Pa- 
pess Joanna, as all respectable historians, whether Romish ot 
Protestant, now admit ; and for my own part I see not how it is 
possible for any decent and respectable scholar, whether chris- 
tian or infidel, to refer to it as an historical fact. Mosheim 
relates it as a story ^ and both in Maclain's and Murdock's transla- 
tion the reader is cautioned against its reception as truth. Thus 
in Murdock's Translation we find the following note. '' Few, if 
any, in modern times, admJt the reality of ^female 'pope; and 
among the English [not Eomish] Pope Joan has become a pro- 
verbial epithet for a fictitious character, which is too ridiculous 
to be mentioned in serious earnest. None of the contemporar}^ 
writers mention such a pope ; for the passage in Anastasius Bib* 
liothecarius, who then lived at Rome and wrote the lives of the 
popes, is undoubtedly spurious. An eye witness could not have 
written, * it is said that a female succeeded to Leo IV,' if he had 
known it as a fact, nor would he have given currenc}^ to such a 
falsehood had he known it to be such. Nor is this the only proof 
that the passage is an interpolation. It was two centuries hefora 
any writer affirmed the fact. ^^ 

Having thus examined the two translations of Mosheim, I turn- 
ed to Reese's Encyclopgedia, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and the 
American Encyclopedia, and in each of these works, I found a 
a denial of the story as a fact and a full exposition of its 'fcti- 
thus character ;^^ and then it occurred to me that I would see 
whether even Gibbon would be willing to lend to it the influence 
of his name as affecting the honor of Christianity. In the 6 vol. 
p. 207 of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he gives 
an account of two female Sovereigns and says, *' their reign may 
have suggested to the dark ages the fable of a female pope;'* 
and then adds in a note as follows, — '* The advocates for Pope 
Joan produce one hundred and fifty Vv^itnesses, or rather echoes of 
the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. They bear testimony against 
themselves and the legend, by multiplying the proof that so cu- 
rious a story must have been repeated by writers of every des- 
cription to whom it was known. On those of the 9th and 10th 

11 



162 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

centuries the recent event would have flashed with a double force. 
Would Photius have spared such a reproach? Could Lautprand 
have missed such a scandal"? It is scarcely worth while to dis- 
cuss the various readings of Matinus Polonus^ Sigebert of Gem- 
blours or even Marianus Scotus ; hut a most palpable forgery is 
the passage of pope Joan, which has heen foisted into some MSS^ 
and editions of the Roman Aiiastasius,''^ 

So much for the story of the Papess Joanna; so much for tb© 
learned Doctor's dilemma that we " must either allow that an in- 
trigueing prostitute was a canonical bishop or acknowledge that 
the line of succession was snapped asunder by an artful woman ;'* 
so much for his assertion that "Pope Joan had long been caip- 
onized;'^ so much for that ^^now tnrhid and polluted stream,^* 
into w'hich the Doctor has plunged himself and in consequence 
of which, "he exposes himself to the just ridicule of all men of 
sense, and to the commiseration of all women of piety." 

3rd. We reply, that even if the story of Pope Joan were true — 
an undoubted and indisputable fact — still it would not in the least 
affect the Episcopal succession either in England or America^ 
nor would it affect the succession, could the learned Doctor prove 
that fifty of the Popes of Eome Avere females, or any thing else 
which he might choose to call them. For at the time when Pops 
Joan is said to have lived and for centuries afterwards, the Bish- 
ops of England no more went to Eome for consecration than they 
came to America; and even if the succession of the Bishops of 
Rome had been utterly annihilated, still it would no more havB 
destroyed the English succession than the annihilation of the En- 
glish succession now would destroy ours. Besides all this, th© 
Church was established in England long before the acknowledg- 
ment of the supremacy of the Church of Eome either in thai 
country or any where else. Thus says Blackstone in his com- 
mentaries " The ancient British Church hy whomsoever planted^ 
was a stranger to the Bishop of Rome and his pretended authority J* 
Commentaries, b 4. c 8. 

4th. We reply, that the Episcopal succession whether in th5» 
country or in England or in Rome, or any where else, cannot bd 



DEFENDED. 163 

80 easily destroyed as many persons seem to imagine. Certain- 
1}^ it cannot if it is founded upon the promise of the Saviour, as 
we believe it is ; and to satisfy the mind of a plain christian man, 
that promise is enough. But for the conviction of cavillers and 
sceptics and for the information of others, I present the following 
facts taken from Chapin's Primitive Church, "and which will 
show that this breaking of the links which Dr. Bangs boasts of, 
is a moral impossibility. Of course I cannot extract the whole 
of Mr. Chapin's able treatise on the subject, and mnst, therefore, 
confine myself to a single illustration, referring the reader to 
that work for better satisfaction. 

''Bishops are said to succeed each other when they follow in 
the same See or Diocese. Consequently the succession of Bish- 
ops in a particular Diocese is the list of Bishops who have gov- 
erned that Diocese, and may be called a succession of Episcopal 
jurisdiction or government. But it is a very different thinor from 
the Apostolic succession, on which all Episcopal power depends. 
The difference may be briefly explained thus: When one Bishop 
ordains another he commits to the person ordained the same Epis- 
copal powers which he himself possesses. Every Bishop, there- 
fore, receives his authority to minister as a Bishop in the Church 
of Christ, at the time of his ordination or consecration; and he 
deceives it through him who ordained or consecrated. Hence, if 
we wish to trace back the authority of the present bishops we 
must go, not in the line of Bishops occupying a particular See, but 
in the line of their consecrators. The one, we shall call the sue- 
cession of Episcopal governors ; the other, the AposioHc succession. 
Our meaning may be explained by an example. All the colo- 
nies were originally attached to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
London, and hence each of the Dioceses in this country where 
there was an Episcopal Church before the Revolution, wouU 
trace the succession of Episcopal governors back to the Bishope 
of London. But the Apostolic succession is traced throuo-h the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, the iirst Bishops of this country hay- 
ing been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Or wo 
may trace it through the Archbishop of York, as the Archbishop 



C64 



THE EPISCOPAL CHtJRCH 



of York assisted at the consecration of our first Bishops. But 
we may also trace our Apostolic succession back to the Church 
of Scotland; for one lawful Bishop is sufficient to confer the 
Apostolic succession; and as there are at least three Bishops or- 
dinarily engaged in the consecration of a Bishop, we may traca 
the Apostolic succession through any of the ordaining Bishops. 
Now, Bishop Seabury was consecrated by Eobert Kilgour, Arthur 
Petrie and John Skinner, Scottish Bishops, November 14, 1784- 
From him we have received the Apostolic succession thus"— 
mentioning the person whom he assisted in consecrating^ &c. 
but I omit the names. 

'^ Again, the Archbishopsof Canterbury and York were assisted 
in the consecration of Bishops White and Provost by the Bishops 
of Peterborough, and of Bath and Well^, consequently if either 
of these four Bishops had received a valid consecration, the con- 
secration of Bishops White and Provost must also be valid. Now, 
«ts every Bishop now living, or that ever has lived in this coun- 
try, can trace their succession to all these Bishops, all may tra6> 
their succession through which line they please. 

" Again, the Archbishop of Canterbury was assisted in the con- 
secration of Bishop MadlsoUy by the bishops of London and Koch^ 
ester. Now, since all the Bishops now living or that ever hav# 
lived in thus country, can trace their succession through Bishop 
Madison, to either of these Bishops, it follows, that if either of 
these had received a valid consecration, our bishops have been 
validly consecrated. We see, therefore, that if either the Arch>- 
bishops of Canterbury or York, or the Bishops of London or of 
Bath and Wells, or Peterborough or of Eochester, or of Ross and 
Murray^ or of Aberdeen, had had a valid consecration, our Bish^ 
t>ps have all been validly consecrated, and the succession ha« 
been preserved unbroken. 

^■.We have detailed these facts more at large than we should 
'have done, had we not designed to have used them to illustrate. 
an important point in this enquiry which seems not to be well un^ 
derstood. V^e know that from the second century to the present 
tixne^ it -has required at least three Bishops in the consecration of 



DEFENDED. 16^ 

another Bishop. Now, if it should ever happen, that either one 
or even two of the three ordaining Bishops, should prove not to 
be lawful Bishops, the one remaining lawful Bishop would be 
sufficient to transmit the Episcopal authority. We see, therefore, 
if Bishops White and Provost and Madison, who were consecra- 
ted hy the Archbishop of Canterbury, had never been consecra- 
ted at all, but had assumed to themselves the Episcopal office, 
without any authority, still, all the Bishops in our Church would 
now be lawful Bishops, as all can trace their succession to Bish- 
op Seabury. And yet, Bishop Seabury never assisted in the con- 
secration of but a single Bishop ! And what may seem more sin- 
gular still, is, that there never has been a Bishop consecrated in 
the Episcopal Church in this country, that could not trace his . 
succession to Bishop Seabury. This -will enable the reader to 
see that the evidence in favor of the Apostolic succesion, is of 
that high degree of prohahilUy, not to say certainty, that the sup- 
position of a break in it, is one of the most improbable ideas that 
could ever enter one's head, and that it is next to impossible it 
should ever occur. It will be seen from this, also, that there may 
have been ever so many vacancies in the line of Episcopal govern- 
ors, without afiecting in the least the Apostolic succession. Du- 
ring this interval all acts peculiarl}^ pertaining to the Apostolic 
office, must be performed by the Bishop of some other see. This 
is so obvious to one at all acquainted with the subject, that it 
would seem unnecessary to mention it, if such vacancies had not 
been spoken of by the opponents of Episcopacy, as breaking the 
line of succession. But. men wise in other matters are not aware 
of the fallacy, because they confound Episcopal government with 
Apostolic succession." 

Now, from the illustration here given, the intelligent reader 
will perceive not only that the learned Doctor Bangs, is unable 
to break the Apostolic succession by any such stories as those 
of Pope Joan, but that in the provision made for its continuance 
by the very nature of things, there is clearly manifest the wis- 
dom of its Founder, and we see in this, as in other facts connected 



166 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

-vv'itli the Gospel, that " the foolishness of God is wiser than men 
and the Vv'eakness of God is stronger than men." 

oth. Finally, we say to all the Doctor's arguments drawn 
from the corruptions of the Romish Church, and by which he has 
endeavored to ridicule and deride the Apostolic Succession, that 
they apply with equal force to the uncorrupted 'preservation of the 
Scriptures, and that the Infidel has only to put the Bihle in the 
place of succession, and he will find a Book ready made to his 
hands and adapted to his purpose. We say, also, that the gene- 
^^ogy f (^^<-^ Saviour, containing in it the names of Eahab and 
David, is open to the same 1-dnd of ridicule and sarcasm; and al- 
though, therefore, such a Boolv will not permanently affect the 
minds of intelligent people, as all hnovv- that the grace and mer- 
cy of God cannot be destroyed or polluted b}' the weakness or 
wickedness of man — as the light of heaven is uncontaminated by 
the medium through vv-hich it shines and the pollutions of the 
earth on which it rests — still there may be some Vv^ho, for a time 
will be injured by it. In the end, however, we are verily per- 
suaded, that so far from advancing the cause of Methodism, it 
will prove another '^ assasslnaiing knife, sticking fast in the vitals 
of that body,'' 



ADDENDA. 



The attentive reader has no doubt observed, that Mr. Steele in 
his last letter, refused to go on any farther in the discussion of 
those ver}^ subjects which had been opened by himself; that he 
was disposed to confine his remarks entirely to matters of a per- 
sonal nature, that the ^'war^^ spirit which was manifested in the 
first of his communications, had greatly subsided, and he even 
gave me a gentle hint at the conclusion, that he expected no 
more letters from me. At this time it was well understood that 
I intended to publish our correspondence, as the only way to 
meet the accusations which had been so publicly made, and no 
doubt it was to prevent such publication that this coarse was 
taken. However, as I did not intend in this way to be deterred 
from the work which had been commenced, I resolved to '' travel'' 
on alone, and therefore prepared the foregoing Letters, to be ad- 
dressed to Mr. Steele through the Press. After this was known 
and some alarm existed in relation to the consequences, I receiv- 
ed the following letter, to which I sent the annexed reply:- — 

Batavia, Nov. 7, 1842. 
Eev. Mr. Bolles, 

Dear Sir — As it is now nearly three weeks since I sent you 
my answer to your last communication, and as I proposed some 
questions, embracing, as I thought, the ground of your complaint, 
together with an assurance that if there had been wrong upon 
my part, that wrong should be righted, and as a conviction of 
wrong must depend upon your answer to my questions, I would 
still say that I should be happy to receive an answer at your ear- 
liest convenience. 

As the correspondence between us is a matter of your own seek- 
ing, you can close it, of course, whenever you are disposed to dg 



168 



THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 



SO. As you deny intending a challenge in your first communi- 
cation, should you write again, you will please\state what you 
did mean by the term "discuss," and whether you do or do not 
wish to " discuss" publicly the jure divino claims of your Bish- 
ops. Had I sent a communication to you to invite you to " dis- 
cuss" any given point, I should suppose that you would have un- 
derstood it as a "call" upon m}" part to debate the question with 
you, but as my spectral powers may have deceived me in this^ 
you will please explain, and show the difference between a call 
to discuss, debate, and a challenge. Though I am not a war 
character, still, believing truth to be immortal I shall not decline 
a discussion, provided, as I said before, the preliminary questions 
can be disposed of, by which, I mean the questions to be discuss- 
ed and the place, time and manner of discussion. 

In examining your last communication more carefully than 
Vv-hen I replied to it, I find many more mistakes than those I 
named. To notice but one, and that one you mark as very em- 
phatic, viz. That we left Tract No. 4 on sale at the Bookstore. 
This, I think, you v/ill find to be false. 

Yours Respectfully, 

Allen Steele, 



PEFENDKD. 169 

Batavia, Norember 8, 1842. 
The Eev. Allen Steele, 

Dear Sir — Your letter of yesterday's date I have perused, and 
most willingly do I embrace the opportunity of entering into 
such an explanation of my correspondence, as you seem to desire-.. 
The whole matter, then, as I understand it, is as follows: 

In the summer, to my entire surprise and without any intima- 
tion of your intention, I was informed that you read a communi- 
cation from your pulpit, in relation to me. What that commu- 
nication contained, of course I did not know, but some said it 
contained one thing and some another, and by many, probably, it 
was not well understood, and may have been greatly exaggera- 
ted. At all events it was a very unusual thing — something Vv^hich 
I never heard of before, as occurring between christian ministers, 
however much they might differ from each other on points of 
Theology, and however strong might be their antipathies ; and 
whether intended or not, it was certainly calculated to publish 
me, to hold me up to the odium of the community and to destroy 
my character and usefulness as an ambassador of Christ. So I 
felt it, and the more severely, as coming from those whose wel- 
fare I had sincerely sought, and for whose spiritual good, how- 
ever much you may suspect my motives, I had most ardently 
prayed. Then follovv^ed a course of Lectures, appointed at a 
time when the members of the various religious denominations 
could all attend, to which many came from a distance and even 
from the neighboring towns, and being founded upon your first 
communication, they were of course calculated so to connect me 
with them, as to make me responsible for whatever opinions and 
sentiments you were pleased to combat. 

The effect of all this, upon my own people especially, I greatly 
lamented; not because I thought it would permanently draw 
away any from the Church, but at that time, there was more 
than usual feeling on the subject of religion, and the dispensa- 
tions of divine Providence among us, had made a deep and sol- 
emn impression upon the minds of many. Hence the only course 
which I thought proper then to pursue, was, to visit as many 



170 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

families as I could, and to urge them by all means, not to allow 
any unkind or uncharitable expressions to escape their lips, but 
to engage more earnestly than ever in prayer to God for the 
guidance of his Holy Spirit. This I did, as they will bear me 
witness; and then, in accordance with an arrangement which 
had been long previously made, I left the place for a few weeks— 
partly to attend the convention and partly to pay my annual vis- 
it to the home of my childhood. 

Of course the occurences here were made the subject of reflec- 
tion; and I determined as a duty both to you and myself, to take 
som.e notice of them; but not hastily, not by any public and un- 
expected declaration of my sentiments and feelings; but by that 
course vrhicli the Scriptures have prescribed when there are of- 
fences *' between brethren." Hence the letter which I address- 
ed to you of September the 7th, my first communication. 

Now, if 3^ou will examine that letter carefully^ you will per- 
ceive that I confined myself entirely to one subject of complaint, 
viz. your comriiunicatioa mentioning me hy name. Nothing was 
said about the Church; nothing about Bishop DeLancey; nothing, 
even, about your lectures. But after stating the simple subject 
of complaint as above, I then went on to declare, that I was "not 
conscious of having given any just cause of offence either to your- 
self or your 3.Ietliodist brethren," and therefore, that I considered 
this attack upon my character unkind and unjustifiable, and 
remembering the many substantial proofs which my people had 
given to you of their regard, I expressed myself at a loss ta ac- 
count for the reasons of your conduct; for certainly I could not 
but feel that they, as well as myself, as connected with me by 
many ties and concerned at least in some degree in my honor 
and reputation, had cause to be aggrieved. When I spoke of 
substantial proofs of regard, the idea of money or of subscrip- 
tions of money for the erection of your house of worship, did not 
enter into my mind. I refered entirely to 'personal proofs to 
yourself, more valaabe than money and which money cannot pur** 
chase, consisting in the fact of their frequent attendance upon 
your services, of the uniform kindness and respect with which. 



DEFENDED. 171 

I believe, they have spoken of you, and of the many tokens of 
esteem for your talents and piety which have thus, and in many 
ways been extended towards you. Surely then, I had reason to 
express xn.j surprise at this sudden attempt, &c. — and having ex- 
pressed my surprise, I then added, ' True it is, that between you, 
as a Methodist, and myself as an Episcopalian, there is a wide 
difference of opinion on the important subjects of Church gov- 
ernment and order, and most happy should I be at any time, in a 
calm and dispassionate mannex, to discuss or examine those dif- 
ferences vv^ith you.' Now, the fact of there being a difference of 
opinion on certain subjects is here suggested as perhaps a reason 
for your conduct — [True, I say, &;c.) but as one which in my 
opinion was by no means sufficient to account for it, and the 
more so, as we could at any time, (I was willing,) in a calm and 
dispassionate manner, discuss or examine our differences, with- 
out any injury, at least to the personal character and reputation 
of either. 

Here, then, again, you have entirely mistaken the purport of 
my letter, for nothing was farther frora my mind than to chal- 
lenge you to a public debate; a thing which could scarcely be 
calm and dispassionate in either of us to suggest — v/hich I could 
not consent to do with you or with any other man — which I 
should consider about as unbecoming to our characters as duel- 
ing to the character of a northern gentleman, and which would 
have, perhaps, about as much effect in establishing Truth as 
dueling has in establishing points of honor. I know that pub- 
lic religious debates have sometimes been held by reputable per- 
sons, as dueling has been practiced by them, and I have heard 
of a man who pleaded this passage of St. Paul in justification of 
it, ^'without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness,-^ and 
hence, he argued, that with controversy the mystery would bo 
cleared up — however, this is only one of the beauties of private 
interpretation, and with all your opposition to Oxford Tracts, I 
am inclined to think in this instance, you will allow, that the 
man ought to have sought some better guide to the interpreta- 
tion of Scripture, than his own perverse inclinations. 



172 THE EPISCOPAL CHtTRCH 

But can my letter possibly bear the interpretation you have 
put upon it ? I think not. 1st, It does not contain even an invi* 
tation, much, less a. challenge to any thing, but a simple expression 
of willingness at any time^ ^c,^ and of course throwing upon you 
the responsibility of asking it. 2nd, The words calm and dis^ 
passionate must sufficiently guard it against such an interpreta- 
tion. 3rd, The word discuss does not necessarily mean a public 
debate, in your sense at all; for a simple discussion may be ca> 
ried on by two individuals alone, and by VvTiting as well as speak* 
ing. 4th, The words or examine^ (not and examine,) are evi* 
dently intended to explain more fully the foregoing word discuss — 
find in a public debate I am inclined to think, that there could 
not be much opportunity for a calm and dispassionate examina* 
tion either by ourselves or the people. 

In the same manner do I think you have manifestly misunder- 
stood the obvious m.eaning of the next paragraph in my letter. 
Having begun the letter in the first place by stating the occasion of 
complaint, and confining that to one thing, I then went on to show 
why I complained, — because I was not conscious, &:c., because I 
thought it an act of unkindness and injustice; because my peo- 
ple, &:c., and because our differences, &c., would not justify it, — 
and then I declared, that such is the nature of your present at- 
tack that no other course seems to be left to me, than plainly and 
honestly to enter my solemn protest agains this extraordinary ar* 
raignment, &c. Is there any thing here said or intimated about 
a public cxriGsnre, or any threat of the kind? Surely not. My 
letter itself contained the solemn protest, addressed personally ix) 
you, and so I wished you to receive it. 

Then in conclusion, that you might not misunderstand my mo- 
tive in addressing you, and presuming from what I had heard of 
your lectures, that you had entirely mistaken my feelings and 
principles, I quoted and adopted as expressing my own senti- 
ments, one of the most divinely charitable declarations which, 
was ever uttered by the lips of man; and by this I intended, as 
it were, to let you into m.y heart — to let you see that I am by no 
means that monster of bigotry and impiety and intolerance which 



DEFENDED. l73 

foti might imagine; at least that I do not think I am; that mir 
intentions are to cultivate the most charitable feelings towards 
all, though to maintain with firmness whatever I am convinced 
-Is the truth ; and by such a conclusion to my letter I was in hopess 
tather to awaken your kindness, than to provoke the feelings of 
hostility and opposition. But how you have received this portion 
af my letter your reply will tell. 

. Thus have I gone over with my first letter, with an explana- 
tion of its several parts and the circumstances which gave it birth. 
Of course I did not know Avhat you would do about it, nor what 
shape our correspondence might assume, or indeed, whether it 
would assume any shape. But when your reply came, I could 
scarcely have been rnote surprised had you entered my room with 
«t** posse comitatus" to drag me to prison. However, having- 
slept upon the matter, I concluded at all events not to '^gef mad,''* 
ijnd so long as you did not *'call me a Bishop," to use the Ian*- 
g'uage of Mr. Wesley, I would be content that you call me any of 
-the names mentioned by him in his letter to Mr. Asbury. In 
tliis spirit I endeavored to write my reply, entering into a frank 
statement of ail I knew in relation to the Tracts, concealing 
Clothing material to the questions at issue, and stating nothing 
•which I do not believe can be fully established by the most indu- 
isitable testimony* At the same time, perceiving from your en- 
life misunderstanding of my first communication, that there w^as 
little probability of our coming to any agreement personally, I 
ftien determined to follow the lead wdiich you had given me, 
(notwithstanding your talk about preliminaries,) and discuss tho 
questions of Methodism and Episcopacy; and then, at the con- 
clusion of our correspondence to lay the whole before the public, 
to enable the people before whom you had arraigned me, provi- 
ded they were so disposed, to examine hoth sides of the contro- 
versy. Hence I worded my second letter in such manner as to 
iet you understand my determination, and your letter in reply, 
affords conclusive evidence that in this respect you did not mis- 
take me. 
BiLit inasmuch as there wel*e several things in your first letter 



174 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

relating to the Church, to which I had not particularly replied in 
my second, I comn^enced immediately an additional communica- 
tion, as a kind of supplement to the former, and intended to send 
it to you so soon as your answer should he received. Hence my 
impatience at your delay, for I wished to hasten the husiness, 
and I was anxious to send to you the supplement, which was fin- 
ished the first week, but which I could not with propriety send 
without knowing- the course you \vere disposed to pursue. Then 
came your reply, in which you confined yourself principally to 
personal matters, saying that imj *' epistle refers to subjects which 
you cannot consent to discuss in this random icay,^^ refusing *' to trav^ 
eV^ loith me any farther than necessary to correct the wrongs in 
mentioning me ly name^ and alout wkich^ certainly^ I had no fat' 
ther explanations to make, and then in conclusion, you gave me to 
understand that you did not much expect to hear from 7ne again ^ 
for you said (notioillistanding your questions) "hoping if you 

WRITE TO ME AGAKT," fcc. 

Here, then, were several plain intimations of your determina- 
tion to retire from the correspondence, and considering the per- 
sonalities of your letter, I could not much regret it. However, 
my own mind was immediately made up — if you would not 
** travel" with me, to travel on alone ; and this I have done. I 
have prepared a series of Letters addressed to you, and I am hap- 
py to say that they are nearly ready for the Press, so that you will 
have nothing more to do, than to answer them at your leisure^ 
provided you are so disposed. Your letters will be published 
without any corrections from me, only I intend to send 3^ou th^ 
"proof sheet," for your revision. My letters I intend to publish 
as sent to you, (all that have been sent, of course,) unless an im^ 
material note be omitted in relation to the opinions of Dr. Bangs^ 
or quotation from him, of which I did not keep a cop}- — and 
also the introduction of the entire letters of Messrs. John & Ch'g, 
Wesley, which for the argument then ^ it was- unnecessary wholr 
ly to transcribe. 

When you shall make a full and plain reply to that part of 
my letter asserting that the Tract No. 4, on Methodism^ was placed 



DEFENDED. 175 

m the Bookstore by one of your own members and not iy me or 
any agency of 7nme, and this, as one would naturally suppose, 
either for sale or gratuitous distribution, and when you shall tell 
all you know" about it, as to the manner in which they were pro- 
cured, and by whom they were placed there for some purpose 
or other, when this is done, then if your statement shall contra- 
dict the material facts of mine, I shall be compelled to bring for- 
%vard my proof. But until this is done, I shall consider the im* 
portant fact in the matter, to be confessed by yon. 

Now, my dear Sir, I have a few remarks to make of a some- 
what different nature from any that have gone before. In my 
correspondence with you, I have endeavored not to manifest a 
captious spirit; not to seize upon a few unguarded expressions 
and torture them to your injury, and although you may think dif- 
ferently, yet I do assure you there are many things in your let- 
ters, to which I have been unwilling even to refer, but which 
might easily be made to react with much force upon yourself. 
Take, for instance, your boast of not having preached on contro- 
versial subjects, &c. How strange a boast for you to make; 
when contrasted not only vnth the fact that according to youT 
own acknowledgement you intended to do so, at the conclusion 
of your evening Lectures, to which all denominations are espe- 
cially invited, but with the more important fact that not a year 
had elapsed before you found yourself in the utterance of the 
most unfounded charges against a neighboring body of chris- 
tians, and that very body the one, which had given you its aid 
in building you up and from which your sect originally sprung. 
In a single year — a time too short to test the talents and integri- 
ty of any man — and you have com.mitted an act w^hich, to say 
the least, was hasty in the extreme, and which in its results, mar 
be almost as cruel to yourself as to me. 

But of all that is passed I freely forgive you, and not only for* 
g'ive you but acquit you of all blame, for I do not believe this 
matter has originated with you. On the contrar}^ I am per^ 
Buaded that you and a few otber excellent members of yout 
church, have allowed themselves to be controlled by one or ItM 



176 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 

individuals, and for the sake of pleasing them> and yielding to 
their misguided prejudices and judgments, you have acted incon*- 
sistently with your own sober convictions. By them your mind 
has been poisoned in reference to me, and to the members gener- 
ally of the Episcopal Church. Hence the attempt which was 
made on the first opening of your house, to place it in an atti- 
tude of rivalry to us, and this unhallowed feeling of rivalry has 
led them on from one step to another until the opportunity was 
seized upon to direct their efforts against me, and if possible, to 
bi'eak me down, as standing in their ivay. 

But I have lived in this community too long, and I know the 
people of this village too well, to believe, that they Vvdll allow 
this effort to succeed. There are many generous hearts in your 
own congregation, who will remember the past, who have often 
sympathized with me in the duties and trials of my office— who 
know, that in darker days than these I did not fear to lift up m}^ 
voice against every kind of immorality and sin, whether in high 
places or low, who have found me no proselyting friend in sea- 
sons of afiiiction and distress, and to them I am confident I might 
safely go for protection against the assaults of such individuals 
as those to whom. I have alluded. 

And though my success as a minister among my own peoplg 
■Jias not been equal to my hopes and expectations, and I have 
tnany things to lament and bewail in myself as well as in them, 
yet, Vv^hen I consider the peculiar difficulties of my situation — 
the harrassing task of a weekly preparation for the Pulpit yea? 
after year — the little time which is consequently afforded me for 
(pastoral visiting — the limited experience whichi possessed in all 
these matters when I came here — when I remember these, I can- 
^liot but feel that I have much cause for gratitude to God — and I 
da not believe, therefore, that the friends among whom I have 
thus labored, and who have stood by me so long, are now pre- 
pared to cast me off a wilfully false and slanderous defamer of the 
brethren. No, sir, against all such charges, originating not with 
yov^ nor Vvith your people generally, but with one or two individ- 
uals.) I feel that I am standing upon a rock, and am protected 



DEFENDED. 177 

alDOve and around and within me by many invincible shields, so 
that however poisonous their arrows, they fall harmless at my ■ 
feet. 

This letter you will please to receive in reply to your last — 
though referring; in the conclusion to the tone and temper of your 
previous communication. A direct reply to that, however, will 
appear in the pamphlet which I intend to publish. As the pa- 
pers for that pamphlet, which are already prepared, will swell it 
to a considerable size, I shall not noiv be able to admit any far- 
ther communications. But if you icill take up the subject of Epis- 
copacy or any other subject connected with the Episcopal Churchy 
and discuss it in iDriting^ in any shape you please, and settling your 
own preliminaries, then 1 engage tofollotc you, and toe will publish 
it either in nnrahers or when the lohole correspondence is finished — 
or if you like this expression better, w^e will leave the whole to 
the disposal of the public. 

Sincerely believing that I have v/ritten nothing which forbids 
me the happiness of subscribing myself 

Your friend and brother in Christ, 

James A. Bolles. . 



13 



APPENDIX. 

A 

'^REASONS AGAINST SEPARATING FROM THE CKUECH.'* 

The following reasons against separc^Uoji were j)uhlishcd hy Mr. 
John Wesley^ and read among the Methodists, expressly for the 
purpose of '-'-hreaking doicn the schismatical spirit ^ How a^ppli- 
cable they are to the present state of things in thai denomination, let 
the reader judge : 

" Because it would be a contradiction to the soleniM and repeat^ 
ed declarations which we have made in all manner of ways, in 
riieaching-, in print and in private conversation. 

Because on this, as well as many other accounts, it would give 
hun-e occasion of offence to those who seek and desire occasion ; 
to all the enemies of God and truth. 

Because it would exceedingly prejudice against us many who 
fear, yea, who love God; and thereby hinder their receiving so 
much, perhaps any further benefit from our preaching. 

Because it would hinder multitudes of those who neither \ov^ 
nor fear God, from hearing us at all. 

Because it would be throwing balls of wild fire among them 
that are now quiet in the land. We are now sweetly united to- 
gether in love. We mostly think and speak the same thing. 
But this would occasion inconceivable strife and contention be- 
tween those who left and those who remained in the church, as 
wei! as between those who left us, and those who remained with 
Uc>: nay, and between those very persons who remained, as they 
were variously inclined one way or the other. 

Because, to form the plan of a new church, would require infi- 
nite time- and care, (which might be far more profitably bestowed) 



APPENDIX A. 179 

with much more wisdom, and greater depth and extensiveness 
of thought than any of us are masters of. 

Because, from some having barely entertained a distant thou^rht 
of this, evil fruits have already followed; such as a prejudice 
against the clergy in general, and aptness to believe ill of them; 
contempt not without a degree of bitterness, of clerg3^men, as 
such; and a sharpness of language towards the whole order, ut* 
terly unbecoming either gentlemen or christians. 

Because we have melancholy instances of this, even before our 
eyes. Many have, in our memory, left the church, and formed 
themselves into distinct bodies. And certainly some of them 
from a real persuasion^ that they should do God more service. 
But have any separated themselves and prospered? have they 
been either more holy, or more useful than they were before? 

Because, by such a separation we should not only throw away 
the peculiar gIorif3nng which God has given us, ** That we do and 
will suffer all things for our brethren's sake, though the more we 
love- them, the less we be loved;" but should act in direct con- 
tradiction to that very endjfor ivliick toe lelieve God hath raised it^ 
up. The chief design of his providence in sending us out, is un- 
doubtedly to quicken our brethren. And the. first message of all 
our preachers is, to the lost sheep of the church of En^rland. 
Now, would it not be a flat contradiction to this design, to sep- 
arate from the church? These things being considered, we can- 
not apprehend (whether it be lav/ful in itself or no) that it is law- 
ful to us; were it only on this ground, that it is by no means ex- 
pedient. 

It has indeed been objected, that till we do separate, we can- 
not be a compact, united body. 

It is true, we cannot till then be a compact united body, if you 
mean by that expression, a body distinct from all others; and we 
have no desire to be so. 

We look upon ourselves, not as the authors or ringleaders of 
a particular sect or party; it is the fartherest thing from our 
thoughts ; but as messengers of God to those who are Christiana 
in name, but Heathens in heart and life; to call them back to 



180 



APPENDIX A. 



that from which they are fallen, to real, genuine Christianity. 
We are therefore debtors to ail of them, of whatever opinion and 
denomination; and are consequently to do all that in us lies, to 
please all for their good to edification. 

We look upon the Methodists, so called, in general, not as any 
particular party; (this would exceedingly obstruct the grand de» 
sign for which we conceive God has raised them up) — but as liv- 
ing witnesses in, and to every party, of the Christianity which 
we preach; which is hereby demonstrated to be a real thing, and 
visibly held out to all the world. 

We look upon the clergy, not only as a part of our brethren, 
but as that part whom God, by his adorable providence, has call- 
ed to be watchmen over the rest, for v/hom, therefore, they ara 
to give a strict account. If these men neglect their important 
charge; if they do not watch over them with all their povver^ 
they will be of all men most miserable, and so are entitled to 
our deepest compassion. So that to feel, and much more to ex- 
press either contempt or bitterness towards them, betrays an ut- 
ter ignorance of ourselves and of the spirit v/hich we especially 
should be, of. 

Might it not be at least a prudent rule, for every Methodist 
preacher, not to frequent any dissenting meeting? Though we 
blame none who have always been accustomed to it. But if wo 
do this, certainly our people will. AW this is actually separa- 
ting from the Church, If, therefore, it is, at least, not expedient 
to separate, neither is this expedient. Indeed, we may attend our 
assemblies and the church too, because they are at different hours. 
But we cannot attend both the meeting and the church, becauso 
they are at the same hours. If it be said, '* But at the church wq 
are fed with chaff; whereas, at the meeting Vv^e have whclesomo 
food:" We answer; 1st. The prayers of the church are not 
chaff; they are substantial food for any who are alive to God. 
2nd. The Lord's supper is not chaff, but pure and wholesome for 
all who receive it with upright hearts. Yea. 3rd. In almost all 
the sermons we heat there, we hear many great and important 
truths;. And whoever has a spiritual discernment may easily- 



APPENDIX A, 181 

separate the chaff from the wheat therein. 4th. How little is 
the case mended at the meeting? Either the teachers are new- 
light-men, denying the Lord that bought them, and overturning 
his gospel from the very foundation ; or they are predestinarians, 
and so preach predestination and final perseverance more or less. 
Now, whatever this may he to them that were educated therein, 
yet to those of our brethren who have lately embraced it, repeat- 
ed experience shows it is not wholesome food; rather to them it 
has the effect of deadly poison. In a short time it destroys all 
their zeal for God. They groio fond of options and strife of 
words. They despise self-denial and the daily cross; and to 
complete all, wholly separate from their brethren. 

Nor is it expedient for any Methodist preacher to imitate the 
dissenters in their manner of praying: neither in his tone; all 
particular tones, both in preaching and praying, should be avoid- 
ed with the utmost care. Nor in his language: all his words 
should be plain and simple, such as the lowest of his hearers both 
use and understand. Nor in the length of his prayer, which 
should not usually exceed four or five minutes, either before or 
after sermon. 

If w-e continue in the church, not by chance or for want of 
thought, but upon solid and well weighed reasons, then we should 
never speak contemptuously of the church, or any thing pertain- 
ing to it. In some sense, it is the mother of us all, who have 
been brought up therein. 

In order to cut off all jealousy and suspicion from our friends, 
and hope from our enemies, of our having any design to separate 
from the church, it would be well for every Methodist preacher, 
who has no scruple concerning it, to attend the service of the 
ehurch as often as conveniently he can. And the more we at- 
tend it, the more we love it, as constant experience shows. On 
the contrary, the longer we abstain from it, tlie less desire we 
hare to attend it at all.** 



/ 



182 APPENDIX Be 

B 

THE CHARACTER OF THE TWO BROTHERS JOHN AND CHARLES WESLBt, 
IS THUS DRAWN BY SOUTHEY. 

"Entirely as these two brothers had agreed in opinions and 
principles, and cordially as they had acted together during so 
many years, there was a radical difference in their dispositions. 
Of Charles, it has heen said, by those who knew him best, that 
ii ever there was a human being who disliked power, avoided 
preeminence and shrunk from praise, it was he; whereas no con- 
queror or poet was ever more ambitious than John V^esley. 
Charles could forgive an injury; but never again trusted one 
whom he had found treacherous. John could take men a second 
time to his confidence, after the greatest wrongs and the basest 
usage; perhaps because he had not so keen an insight into the 
characters of men as his brother; perhaps because he regarded 
them as his instruments, and thought that all other considerations 
must give way to the interests of the spiritual dominion he had 
acquired." Southey^s Life, 2 vol p 138. 



APPENDIX, a 183 



DISCIPLINE OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHDRCH. 

For the purpose of obtaining information upon the subjects in- 
dicated in the following letter, I wrote to an intelligent farmer 
of this neighborhood, who is a Methodist Protesiant — a man of 
undoubted probity and excellency of character, and who, as I 
knew, had paid considerable attention to the internal regulations 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church : 

My dear friend — As I know you have paid considerable atten- 
tion to the Lisciiiline of the M. E. Church, I take the liberty of 
askmg you for a concise statement of /ac/^5 upon that subject. 
What are the powers of their bishops? What the authority of 
their Ruling Elders ? Who compose their Conventions or Con- 
ferences, and what position do their Laity occupy in the admin- 
istration of the temporal and spiritual affiiirs of that denom.in po- 
tion ? What are the points of discipline against wdiich as a Meth- 
odist Protestant, you protest? If you will be so kind as to gi\e 
me the simple facts in relation to the subjects referred to above, 
T/QU will much oblige 

Your friend, 6;:c, 



Rev. and dear Sir — I received your note containing five in- 
terogations relating to the '* Discipline" of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church. The limits of a single letter will not allow me to do 
justice either to myself or the subjects of inquiry; but as you 
desire a ^* concise statement, of the simple facts," I will give 
them to you, so far as I understand the letter and spirit of the 
eaid Discipline. 

1st. " What are the powers of their bishops ?" 
If you allude to the discipline of 1784, when they adopted a 
** moderate Episcopacy," believing the succession from the Apos- 
tles to be a fable, &c., and their bishops as nothing more than 



i&i 



APPEKDIX C. 



Pastors and Presbyters, and their powers the same, then I would! 
say, that the Bishops had not the cares of the world upon thenu 
But if you allude to 1789, when the Episcopacy obtained the 
Legislative powers of the Church, and they declared themselves 
Bishops, '* by regular order and succession;'' and to 1790, Avhen 
they declared themselves invested with full powders to act de- 
cisively in ALL TEMPORAL matters, (see Minutes,) then I am pre- 
pared to give a ''concise and simple" ansv»^er to your inquiry. 
You w^ill observe that the title given to said Church is indicative 

[ of the officers whose prerogative it is to govern the church, and 
in whom is vested the executive foiDer, Neither in the ordina- 

' tion service nor in any part of the Discipline is the government 
mentioned as being vested in the Elders or Deacons, but that they* 
must give up their own w4li (p. 36,) and submit entirely to the 
will of their bishops, (p. l3/>.) Now, to understand more fully 
the extent of the "powers of their bishops," you must also ob- 
serve, that the M. E. Church claims to Ij^e one and IndiviszMe^ so 
that they have no church in Buffalo, Batavia or Rochester, nor in 
any one of the states, nor in any number of the States less than 
the whole, and thus as their church identity extends from the 
rivers unto the ends of the earth, so extensive are the powers of 
their Bishops, for they oversee the whole, both in ^^tem'poral and 
spiritual concerns^ (p. 26.) They have the sole and exclusive 
jurisdiction and executive authority, as the head over Elders, 
Deacons and preachers, in ail the annual conferences, (p. 25,) to 
send them when and where they think proper ;* they have power 
to make, form, divide, subdivide and reunite districts, (lo7) cir- 
cuits, stations, &c. ; to ordain Bishops, Elders and Deacons, (p. 
26;) to receive, change and suspend preachers, (p. 26,) to ap- 
point their presiding Elders, (25-28,) to preside in person, by a 
presiding Elder or preacher in charge, in every judicial depart- 



* In looking at the VI Section of the Discipline, coiiceining MissionB, J 
perceive that the Bishops possess power to transfer preachers to any part ot 
the United States, to Texas or to Africa — and that too, not only without thtir 
consent, but against their wilii page 179, viz. ** Whereas a mission is to be 
e=*tabUshod by a Bishop cither among the aboriginees of our country or tls^-> 



APPENDIX C. 185 

ment which the}^ claim as such, from the General Conference 
down to a committee for the trial of a Lay-member (25, 89 ;) 
they possess a life foioer 'and control over church property, (26- 
159, see also deed of settlement and note at the end of said deed 
167,) the aggregate amount of the whole not less than Jii'6^ viilU 
ions of dollars^ and constantly increasing. The travelling preach- 
ers are tenants of the parsonages and chapels at will, and at the 
end of each year may be removed by the bishop; this places the 
preachers in a state of dependence on Episcopal power, which ia 
claimed by divine right, 

2nd. '' What the authority of their Euling Elders V 
If you mean the presiding Eiders, they are the vice-gerents of 
the Bishops ; thus situated, they go by the Episcopal Aviil in all 
their acts, (30, 124,) and therefore, they cannot see or feel the 
rights, interest or will of preachers or people, only as they view 
them connected with, and subservient to the interests of the of- 
fice of which they are deputies. 

3rd. *' Who compose their Conventions or Conferences." 
''The General Conference shall be composed of one member 
for every fourteen members of each annual conference," with 
the Arch, or Senior Bishop at their head. (19,) The travelling 
preachers compose the annual Conferences, with a Bishop at 
their head; the quarterly conferences are composed of travelling 
and local preach3rs, and travelling preacher's officers, viz. Exhort- 
ers, Stewards, Leaders, ^'' and none else,^^ (p. 29,) with a Bishop 
at their head. Thus you see, that Laxj-niemlers, as such, are ex- 
cluded from the Legislative, Executive and judicial powers o{ 
said Church. 

4th. '' What position do the Laity occupy in the administra- 
tion of the temporal and spiritual affairs of that denomination" ? 
In the temporal concerns they can build Chapels and Parson- 
ages for their Bishops, to be occupied by the travelling preach- 
ers who are nominal owners only, (1-59, 167.) They can pay 
their money to the Preacher's officers — the Stewards — for tho 
support of the travelling preachers, their wives and children, 
Tlie Laity, as such, are not allowed by any rule of Discipline to 



196 APPENDIX C. 

** occupy any position," other than above, in the administration 
of the temporal concerns of that denomination. The Church 
property is held by Trustees who are appointed by the vice-Bish- 
ops, (167,) subject to such rules only as the General Conference 
rnay from time to tin^e, choose to make, (163.) The Laity there- 
fore have ill reality no Church property. The Stewards who 
*^ transact the temporal business," are appointed by the travelling 
preachers, who act for the Bishops. Thus you see the position 
oi^ the Laity. They have no voice even in electing Trustees or 
Stewards. As to the position of the Laity in administering the 
" spiritual affairs" of said Church, I would say, that virtually they 
have none at all, other than subjects. There is no rule in their 
Discipline which secures to the Laity a voice in making or ad- 
ministering their laws, or in any part of the Executive or Judi- 
cial departments; — they have not the right of challenge to a Ju- 
ry who have been packed by the preacher to try them; they do 
not even occupy the position of cojisliiiients^ being disfranchised 
of that palladium of every man's freedom — the sacred rights of 
suffrage! The General Conference monopolizes all suffrage and 
representation to travelling preachers — nay, the Laity, as such^ 
are not even recognised as belonging to the Church, but only *' to 
the denomination." If I understand the phrases of some of their 
preachers and writers, the travelling Preachers, Elders and Bish- 
ops, by a misnoQier, call themselves '^ The Church'\^ !^ (Seo 
Vindication — Repository No. 7, p. 262. Also, Snelhen, p. 159.) 

oth. *' What are the points of Discipline against which, as a 
Methodist Protestant, you protest"? 

To all the above that is not in accordance with a free repre- 
sentative government. To that part of the Discipline where it 
v^ stated that ** Mr. Wesley preferring the Episcopal mode of 
Church government, ordained Dr. Coke," &:c. as not being true, 
and to the assumption of the Episcopacy in 17S9, claiming to be 
Bishops *'by regular order and succession," (see Minutes.) To 

* Thu?, for instance, in one place they ajiy — '^ The Rules hyxchich the Meth- 
cdist Episcopal Church governs its mcTiihcrs," 



APPENDIX C. 187 

the principle, that all 'power in every department emanates from the 
travelling ministry^ and no pari from the local ministry and people. 
To the concentration of every kind of power, executive, legisla- 
tive and judicial, in the same hands, and to the fact that these 
officers are not responsible for the exercise of this power to any 
but themselves. To the denial of the right of suffrage to the 
Laity, and to that part of the Discipline which is liable to be con- 
strued into aprohibitionof the freedom of speech and of the Press, 
(90.) This has been done in Baltimore, and many other places, 
where the reformers were expelled for publishing, reading and 
circulating the *' Mutual Eights,'* a paper containing communi- 
cations against the unwarrantable and assumed powers of tho 
Episcopacy. Finally, to the v/hole system, its tendency and ope- 
rations^ we do most deliberately and solemnly protest, as being 
anti-Christian and unrighteous. We believe that the Episcopal 
power as exercised in said Church, is wrong in principle, that it 
is in a wrong place and wrong countr}^, and that it will ultimate- 
ly lead to wTong consequences, reducing religious liberty below 
the standard of civil. That such a system should obtain in this 
land of freedom is mysterious, and I am surprised that the people 
belonging to that denomination should tamely submit to it, espe- 
cially if they ''read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the whole,** 
as their Bishops desire they should, (p. 4.) We do not object to 
the doctrines and means of grace, but to the fudamental princi- 
ples of the government itself (not the administrators thereof) wo 
do object. 

Yours Respectfully, 

P. S. It is contended by some of the travelling ministers and 
writers in the Methodist Episcopal Church, that ^^ the entire poic- 
er is with the people^^ ; that the '' Quarterly Conference shall have 
authority to license proper persons to preach and renew their li- 
cense annually," &:c. ''Here,** say they, "we hope you will 
learn that the entire power of constituting the ministry in tho 
Methodist Episcopal Church is in the hands of the people, and 
that all the Bishops, Elders and Deacons in the. Church, cannot 



188 APPENDIX C. 

authorize one person to preach the Gospel, in the Methodist So- 
eiety, should the Church of which he is a member give their neg- 
ative.'' But, I ask, who compose the Quarterly Conferences? 
The Bishop, presiding Elders, one or more travelling Preachers, 
Stewards and Class, Leaders. Is one of these a representative 
of the people? No! not one. The Ministers are there in their 
own right as Ministers. The Class Leaders are there by appoint- 
ment of the Ministers; the Stev/ards likewise — not one is cho- 
sen by the people to represent them in the Conference. If all the 
lay-members of the Methodist Episcopal Church should meet to- 
gether in one vast convention, to elect even a single class leader. 
they could not do it. Let them try it in one or in a hundred 
conventions, and it will be found that they cannot put a letter in 
the Book of Laws, nor take a letter from that Book. The ^^ en- 
tire powers^' of the members of said Church are precisely like the 
pov^^ers of the Centurion's servants, to do as they are commanded. 
This is their ^^ entire poicers^^^ nor do they possess a whit more 
or less. 

Against the ^\fiiU pozvers^^^ we were Protestants; for ten years 
we protested. Twice during that time, did the men with " full 
powers"* set us at nought. *^ They knew no such rights, "^^ — 
They scorned our memorials; they turned some of us out of their 
doors, and while the doors were open some of the other prisoners 
went out of their own accord. And because we had protested, 
nnd had been expelled for our protestations, we chose the name 
of Protestants, and being Methodists still, we said that we would 
be called Methodist Protestants, Acknowledging the Lord Jesus 
Christ as the only divine head of the Church, and the word of 
God as the sulFicient rule of faith and practice, in all things per- 
taining to godliness, and being fully persuaded that the repre- 
sentative form of Church government is the most scriptural, and 
the most congenial to our views and feelings as fellow citizens 
with the Saints and of the household of God. 

Yours, &:c. 



i. e. The General Conference, 



APPENDIX D. 189 

D ] 

THE RIGHTS OF THE LAITY IN THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. : 

''^ The Laity are recognized as a distinct and independent order 
in the Protestant Episcopal Church. They have a constitution- 
al or chartered right to act in ail the legislative adairs of the 
Church, without exception — and this not as they happen to be 
members of legislative bodies, but as a separate and independent '. 
order ^ ahvays represented in those bodies. 

To be somewhat more particular : 

I. The Laity have a right to manage their own parochial af- 
fairs, as members of separate and independent parishes; to elect, 
their own Ministers and settle them, to hold corporate funds, to 
appoint their own parish officers, &:c., and finally to elect or ap- 
point and send lay-delegates from the several parishes to represent 
them in the Diocesan Conventions. 

IL They have a right, as a separate order, in the Diocesan 
Conventions, in the discussion and passage of all legislative acts; 
in the appointment of all conventional committees and officers; 
in the election of standing committees; in the r-rgulation of ec- 
elesiastical discipline, &c. ; and finally in the election of all the 
Diocesan Bishops of the Church, and in the election of Clerical 
and Lay-Deputies to the General Convention. 

IIL They have a right as members of the Standing Commit- 
tees to act directly as w^ell as representatively, in advising the 
Bishop; in deciding upon the election of Bishops by other Dio- 
ceses, and upon the resignation of Bishops; in short, in exercis- 
ing all the manifold and important functions of that body, and 
especially in recommending all candidates for orders, first to be 
received as candidates by the Bishop, and afterwards to be or- 
dained by him. 

We believe that in this last mentioned fact, (as in others) tlie 
Laity in the Protestant Episcopal Church exercise a power be- 
yond that exercised by them in any other denomination w^hatev* 



190 



APPENDIX D. 



et. No person can be either received as a candidate for orders, 
or afterwards be ordained, without the consent and recommenda- 
tion of the standing committee. 

IV. They have a right, as an order, in the General Conven- 
L tion, to act in the arrangement and regulation of all the creeds 
ittnd formularies of the Church and modes of public worship; in 
all the legislation of that body; and, finally, in the recomm.enda- 
tion and appointment of all the Bishops of the Church. 
\ V. They have a right to a fair trial by disinterested persons, 
in any cases of ecclesiastical discipline, and a right not only to 
protect themselves from arbitrary or oppressive treatment in such 
cases, but also to punish those who \vould thus tyrannise over 
them. 

VI. Finally, they have a constitutional and chartered right, 
and the power also, to protect themselves in the full and perpet- 
ual enjoyment of all their rights. 

The point which we w^ish our readers to observe most atten- 
tively in these statements is this — that the Laity are always re- 
garded (and consti.nionally regarded) in the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church, a5 a separate and independent order; and their influ- 
ence is felt, not only as they happen to be good debaters or hap- 
pen to number more or less in our ecclesiastical body, hut as thty 
are a constituent body — so that whether they lead or not in the 
debates, or whether they are few or many in the body, they have 
always as an order, their independent and legitimate and con- 
trolling power." (VaiPs Comprehensive Church.) 



APPENDIX E. 191 

E 

AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT THE CIRCULATION OF "THE EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH DEFENDED." 

Among the first persons to whom the Prospectus of this v/ork 
was shown, was the Eev. Allen Steele. Some months after- 
wards, however, the following article appeared in a Methodist 
paper published at Auburn, and was accidently seen by me m 
the Post OfHce of our village: 

*^MOEE JESUITISM IN THE PEOTESTANT E. CHUECH 

EXPOSED. 

^ '^Batavia, Jan. 31, 1843. 

To the Editors of the Northern Advocate : 

Dear Sirs — My attention has, within a few days, been called 
to an advertisement in the Gospel Messenger, a newspaper pub- 
lished at TJtica and edited by the Eev. Dr. Eudd, of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church, of which the following is a copy:^' 

[Here follow the Title of the Pamphlet and the Advertise- 
ment, to which the reader can refer.] 

'*As the prospectus of this forthcoming Vv^ork, thus advertised, 
contains statements calculated to mislead especially my Metho- 
dist brethren, and as it has already induced some of them to be- 
come subscribers to it, under the impression that it would indeed 
be made up of a series of letters being a correspondence between 
the Eev. Mr. Bolles and myself on the subject of Protestant and 
Methodist Episcopacy, I deem it my duty publicly to apprise my 
brethren and friends of the errors thus set forth and announced, 
desiring all who may read the work to suspend their opinions un- 
til my reply shall be given, which will be prepared and publish- 
ed in such form as the circumstances demand and at as early a 
period as time will allow after I have been permitted to peruse 
the work named in the above prospectus. 

The advertisement here copied sets forth several points which 



192 ' APPENDIX E. 

are not true. 1. It is not true that this work will be made up of 
a correspondence between Mr. Bolles and nwself on the subjects 
named. 2, It is not true that it ^vill contain my replies to letters 
thus stated to have been addressed to me. 3. It is not true that 
I have publicly made charges against individuals, * mentioning^ 
them by name.* 4. It is not true that I have made * an attack 
upon the Episcopal Church in a series of lectures.' And, lastly, 
it is not true that this correspondence was commenced in conse- 
quence of such reputed or here named attacks. How far the as- 
sertion that ^ the reader wall find in these letters a num.ber of 
rare and important facts and documents relating to Methodism* 
w-ill be sustained will be more clearl}' seen when the work can 
be read and review^ed. 

The greater amount of matter vvhich this work wall embody, 
and stated to be contained in letters to me, I am. sure has never 
been before mie. A very few letters from Mr. Bolles I received 
and to a few only replied, and not to those few under the impres- 
sion that there was any design to create a correspondence for 
publication. 

Conceiving that b}'" these statem^ents I shall sufficiently apprise 
my brethren and friends of the character of this announced book 
to prevent their being led astray by its pretensions, I will let the 
matter here rest until I can have an opportunity to read Mr. 
Bolles' work and understandingly give it a more extended notice. 

ALLE^^ Steele." 

After reading the above article, and ascertaining that an un- 
usual number of the papers in which it w^as contained, w^ere sen( 
to this village, thoitgh not a single copy had heen sent to me, I wrote 
for the Northern Advocate a reply; but the Editor EEFUSED 
TO PUBLISH IT ! ! For this reason the reply is inserted here. 
Comments are unnecessary. 

THE CHARGE OF *' JESUITISM" REFUTED. 

To the Editor of the Northern Advocate: 

Dear Sir — Your paper of the 9th inst. under the head of 
** More Jesuitism in the Protestant Episcopal Church Exposed,^^ 



APPtiNmx E. 193 

cantains an article signed Allen Steele, to wfiich I beg- leate, 
through the same medium ^ to make the following reply. 

That the Eev. Mr. Steele should differ from me, in matters of 
opinion, is by no means singular; but that there should be such 
a vast difference in our recollection of matters of fact, is marvel- 
lous indeed, and can only be accounted for on the supposition, 
that one or the other of us is entirely deceived. Which it is, 
time will show. 

Without intending to impeach his motives therefore^ I am un- 
der the necessity of saying, that I cannot agree with him at all, 
in the statement w^hich he has been pleased to make in the arti- 
cle referred to above. My own belief is, th?t my correspondence 
with Mr. Steele was commenced in consequence of charges pub- 
licly made by him against individuals, mentioning them hj name^ 
and a subsequent attack upon the Episcopal Church in a series 
of Lectures — that I am now engaged in the publication of that 
correspondence— that this publication will contain Mr. Steele's 
replies, and including those replies^ will he made up of Letters ad* 
dressed to him on the subjects named in the title page of the Book — 
that Mr. Steele had an opportunity of replying to every thing 
which he chose at the time, and consequently that my advertise- 
ment makes no pretensions which will not be fully sustained. 

All these, I believe to be facts, and such facts as the Book it- 
self, when published, will show beyond all contradiction are too 
plain and palpalle to he denied. 

But more than this. I am confident that the Book which I ant 
about to publish, will shovv^ that Mr. Steele has no cause whatever 
for complaint; that my language tov/ards him in all my letters is 
respectful and proper — entii'ely free from every railing accusa- 
tion; and that I have even offered to go over the whole subject 
again, and said to him in these very words — if l/ou ivill take up 
the subject of Episcopacy or any other subject ccmncctcd icith th(* 
Episcopal Chrtrch, and discuss it in icriting, in any shape you 
please^ and settling your own 'preliminaries, then^ 1 engage to foU 
low you^ and we will publish it either in -numhcrs or when the ^choh 
correspondence is finished, 

J3 



194 /prsr^Dix e. 

But I will say no more at present in reply to the extraordinary 
statement which Mr. Steele has been pleased to publish; his 
charge of " Jesuiii^m," not upon me only, but upon the whole 
Episcopal Church, is a solemn thing, and what he must answer 
for at another tribunal than that of public opinion. 

The Printer who is publishing my Book is a member of Mr. 
Steele's congregation, and as it will soon be out, every individ- 
ual can read and judge for himself. 

James A. Bolles, 
Rector of St. James' Church, Batavia, N. Y. 



CONTENTS. 



Page* 
Advertisement to the Reader 3 

Letter to Mr. Steele. His public accusations against 
individuals complained of. Christian charity. Quo- 
tation from Bishop Hobart 5 — 6 

Reply of Mr. Steele His acknowledgement of the 
public mention of individuals. His justification. 
Tracts No. 4 and 5. General charges against indi- 
viduals and against the Church. 6 — 11 

Letter to Mr. Steele. His personal accusations no- 
ticed. Bishop DeLancey. Dr. Peck. Dr. Bangs. 
Tract No. 4 not '^garbled." Tract No. 5. The 
three orders of the Ministry. The Methodists pre- 
tend to have them. Their Book of Discipline exam- 
ined on that point. The doctrines of Mr. Wesley. 
Samuel "Wesley. Charles Wesley's letter to John. 
Dr. Coke . . . /. 11—32 

Supplemental letter to Mr. Steele. Dr. Chapman's Ser- 
mons. The charge of being ^' exclusive and denun- 
ciatory." John Esten Cooke, M. D. His examin- 
ation of Episcopacy and conversion to the Church. 
Unchurching others. Exclusivenes. Ignorance of 
the Church. Apostolic Succession. Concession of 
Dr. Lathrop. Succession once claimed by the Meth- 
odists. Slander. Testimony of Adam Clark. Mr. 
Watson. Robert Hall. Thomas Scott. Dr. Dod- 
dridge. Synod of Dort 33—52 



196 tx)T;rENT9^ 

hetUr to Mr, Steele. Wishing to know whether he 
intends to reply. Suggesting to him the propriety 
of arranging the arguments of his Lectures against 
the Church ,.,. 63 

Re-ply of Mr. Steele. His reasons for delay — promises 
a communication — is ignorant of what is meant by 
the arguments of his Lectures , . . - 53 

Heply of Mr. Steele. He complains of irrelevancy — 
refuses to discuss the subjects of Methodism and 
Episcopacy, *' Brotherh^ love and ministerial kind- 
ness." Dr. Peck. Dr. Bangs. Tracts No. 4 and 
5, Questions proposed- Leaders's Meeting , . . . 64 — 75 

Letter to Mr. Steele. The charges of irrelevancy, of 
commencing an attack upon the Methodists, and of 
using abusive language, all refuted. Mr. Steele's 
quotation from Mr. Powell. His mistake in relation 
to Bishop Ta3'lor. A Lesson of caution 66 — 74 

Letter to Mr. Steele. An examination into the claims 
of Methodist Episcopacy, proposed. What is Epis- 
copacy? The real claims of the Methodists. Mr. 
Wesley never intended to ordain Dr. Coke a Bishop, 
The Greek Bishop Erasmus. Mr- Wesley a Pres- 
byter of the Church of England. His interpretation 
of Acts XIII; 3. Messrs. Coke and Asbury not 
. known as Bishops at first, Mr. Wesley's letter of 
expostulation to Mr. Asbury, Mr. Wesley opposed 
to the American Eevolution. Dr. Coke not receiv- 
ed as a Bishop in England. Alexander Mather, 
not a Bishop , . . , ....-..,., 7o — 78 

Letter to Mr, Steele, The claims of Methodist Episco- 
pacy, continued. Dr. Whitehead — his testimony. 
Dr. Coke's Letter to Mr. Wesley desiring his influ- 
ence in America. English Methodists — their his- 



CONTKNTfli, 197 

Htj. Curious anecdotes of. The testimony of 
Charles Wesley — his letter to Dr. Chandler — his 
Jetter of expostulation to his brother. Remarks of 
Dr. Whitehead. The testimony of Dr. Coke — his 
Sernaon before the Conference at Baltimore. Ex- 
amination of the Sermon by Dr- Whitehead. Dr. 
Coke's credentials, examined. Mr. Wesley's letter 
^'to Dr- Coke^ Mr. Asbury and the brethren in N. 
America^ '^ examined. The confessions of Dr. Coke 
— his letter to Bishop White — his letter to William 
Wilberforce* The character of Dr. Coke — his in- 
consistency — his want of honesty — his rashness — 
liis management with Mr. Wesley. Conclusion of 
Methodist Episcopacy 89 — 119 

Letter to Mr, Steele, Examination of Dr. Bangs' " Or- 
iginal Church." His assertion that " the Methodist 
Episcopal Church was organized before the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church had an existence." The 
terms Bishop and Presbyter. The Apostolic office. 
The power of ordination. The case of Colluthus. 
The case of the Bishop of Agabra. Testimony of 
Jerome. Opinionof all Episcopalians. Acts XIII; 
1 — 3, examined. 1st Timothy, 1, 4, examined. 
Firmillian. Cyprian. Tertullian. Quotation from 
Dr. Bowden. Eutychius. The testimony of Chil- 
lingworth. Lord King. Bishop Stillingfleet. Bish- 
op White. John Wesley a reformer. The argu- 
ment of success. Anecdote of Wesley and Whit- 
field.. The inward call of the Spirit. Divine Eight. 
Extraordinary statement of Dr. Bangs — his perver- 
sion of Dr. Chapman — of Mosheim — of Eusebius. 
The story of the Papess Joanna. Conclusion .... 120 — 166 

Addenda .' 167 

Letter from Mr, Steele. ''Discuss, debate and chal- 
lenjfe." Correction of mistake »......, 167 — ^168 



198 CONTENTS. 

Reply to Mr, Steele, Explanation of the first letter, 
and of the whole correspondence. Mr. Steele*s boast 
•^-his extraordinary course attributed to the influ- 
ence of others— a proposition to discuss the subject 
of Episcopacy 169 — 177 

Appendix. 

A 

Wesley's Reasons againt separation 178 — 181 

B 

The character of the two brothers John and Charles 

Vf esley 182 

C 

Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Letter 

to a Methodist Protestant— his reply 183—188 

D 

The rights of the Laity in the Protestant Episcopal 

Church. 1S9— 190 

E 
Attempt to prevent the circulation of the Episcopal 
Church Defended. Mr. Steele's communication to 
the Northern Advocate. Reply to said communica- 
tion 191 



NOTE BY THE PRINTES. 



e delay in tlie execution of this woi;k — the smaller compass 
nto which the matter has been compressed than was contempla- 
ed in the Prospectus, and the many typographical errors, mast 
)e attributed to the difficulties and inconveniences necessarily 
connected with the publication of such a work, in a countr}^ news- 
)aper establishment. The following are B.few of the errors which 
he reader is requested 'particularly to correct : 

*age 6. third line from 'he bottom, for '' Istinst.," read 7thinst. 

20. fourteenth line from the top, for " Dr.Barns," read Dr. Barnes, 

30. line at the bottom, for "1785," read 1758. 

39. nineteenth line from the top, for '-J cannot look," read/ cannot hut 

look. 
98, thirteenth line from the top, for "raised," read revived. 
114, eleventh line from the bottom, for " favorable," read unfavorable, 
122. ninth line from the top, for " Stillingleet," read Stillingfleet. 
125^ eighth line from the top, for "county," read country. 
128. twelfth line from the bottom, fo; "Agaba," xe^d Agalra. 
142. eleventh line from the top, for "needs no better evidence, that is af- 
forded," read one needs no better evidence than is a^orded. 
145. third line from the bottom, for "argumentj" read argumeniSn 






Mlfmr\r^^'^' 



./^A^AAAf*^AAf^^ 



>^mmm 



■Af^Ar\fS^f! 



AAAA^^'^^' 



■^aa/^a' 






^^^gSlfetJJ^*^!^^!^^Xr^A^AAAAi^MAAAAf^^^A/^^^/^/^^^AM' 



iAA^AA- 



[r^rs^r^r^rw^^^^ 



srsnf^f^^^S^ 






jAAAaVA 






>^mmit- 



.nr/^A 



/^^o.^/^^Q 






>'^'^,<^A; 



A.^^,^" 







li^ffi|tt|^^po 


Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. ( 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide J 
Treatment Date: March 2006 1 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION | 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 1 
Cranberry Township. PA 1 6066 1 
(724)779-2111 1 














5i§!ii 



^Af^i*iA^^^^^M|;^i§'« 



"kN^hlifif^P 



mM 






\/^/^AA-^ 



^^l?^:^AAm^^AA^gSQaQ^^^ 



^f^m^tmrnr^ 



'^^^mRf^ 






^AAA/^-AAftA 



'inAAAA:.^^:^.:'' 






A^ftDi 



S^lWrnfe 



A-AAA 



^.^^«;^^^^;^^ui 






mw«< 



mf\RiiRfif{mf\f{fsm,mkAP»/\nM 



